Quote from: Matt J on 05 October 2022, 10:06:45 AMMy fear is Putin may willingly exchange all his conventional forces in theatre and the black sea (NATO's threatened response) for a nuclear devastated Ukraine.
If he can't have it no one will....

I  doubt he would be allowed to. There is historical preident here, Kruschev was removed by the politbuarux for thretening use of nucs in Cuba. Traditionally the upper echelons of Russia dislike gamblers.

Quote from: Big Insect on 05 October 2022, 07:52:32 AMBecause these sorts of contentious threads (especially when they appear to get very heated) drive away those members, new members, potential members who are just not interested in polarised political debates.
It is impossible t really know what a thread is about until you start reading it.

The only time I've ever seen the kind of extreme behaviour, I think you allude to, was on the TMP Napoleonic board where one individual was continually and gratuitously combatative,  and generally bad mannered.  He is now banned, I understand, as he has been recently from at least one other forum.  It is certainly true that it did drive people away from TMP, people who were very knowledgeable and an asset, but that was the fault of the moderator who took a decade to 'pull the plug' on the person concerned. 

This was, however, a unique case to my knowledge but banning is the simple and effective sanction for that kind of behaviour.

The very existence of a 'Non-wargaming Discussion' board invites the kind of contentious and polarised debate you describe and it seems unreasonable, to me, not to expect it.  It is equally unreasonable, I think, to expect people to agree.  The whole point of a debate is to allow differences to be aired and positions defended, is it not?  But, if it is really an issue the simple answer is, surely, to remove the board.

Quote from: Lord Kermit of Birkenhead on 05 October 2022, 10:26:37 AMI  doubt he would be allowed to. There is historical preident here, Kruschev was removed by the politbuarux for thretening use of nucs in Cuba. Traditionally the upper echelons of Russia dislike gamblers.

I think the fall-out, in every sense of the term, from the use of enough nuclear weapons to devastate Ukraine, would be such that it would be counter-productive in the extreme.  I think the effect of using a single nuclear weapon, even a tactical one, would be disastrous for Putin and Russia. 
On the other hand, it is the case that doctrinally, first use of tactical nuclear weapons is now a stated Russian option. "The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, and also in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation involving the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is under threat." 
According to RUSI 'for general warfighting as a last-ditch effort in cases where the military is losing a war and the state is under threat' and that 'They are thus unlikely to be used in Ukraine, except in the unlikely scenario that Russian forces are routed to the point that Ukraine can retake Crimea.'
How unlikely is that scenario now, I wonder?
Putin is neither mad nor stupid but he does seem to be a risk-taker and, unlike his Soviet predecessors, does not have an ideology to preserve.  He also has neither, as far as I can see, a Central Committee nor a Supreme Soviet to contend with.
In summary, it is all a bit of a worry.        

.

Because these sorts of contentious threads (especially when they appear to get very heated) drive away those members, new members, potential members who are just not interested in polarised political debates.
Agreed; the potential for acrimony is why I touch such subjects very lightly .. or not at all.  I want help with painting, basing and so forth.

I  doubt he would be allowed to. There is historical preident here, Kruschev was removed by the politbuarux for thretening use of nucs in Cuba. Traditionally the upper echelons of Russia dislike gamblers.
As I said at the club in February, the problem is there is no politburo to restrain him.  As an autocrat he is surrounded by toadies who will not tell him when he is wrong, as shown in the farce of the pre-invasion televised interrogation of the advisers on his Council/Cabinet.  As he cannot be wrong, at each stage he has double-downed on his 'investment'.  At what point will someone be willing to stand up to him ... and who will that man be?  It may be that he can only issue orders but who is going to gainsay him and refuse?  He keeps backing himself further into the corner from which I see no route out for him other than WMD, which will have a very uncertain outcome.

I agree with John about Putin - his history suggests someone who has taken gambles and won. (He likes to project this as part of his self image - eg the contested story of his defence of the Dresden KGB Offices armed only with a handgun against a mob). Always bad for rational decision making.

Despite what some commentators (and some intelligence analysts) say; Russia is not the Soviet Union. Whether this is good or bad for making sensible decisions on use of WMD remains unclear at the moment.

By annexing the Donbas Putin is obviously trying to move the goalposts and say an attack here is an attack on Russia. How seriously we should take that is the open question.

Re Khrushchev: While some commentators believe the Cuban crisis may have weakened his power base, Soviet sources and most analysts do not mention it as a factor in his removal which had more to do with shifts in political power blocs within the Politburo and wider Communist Party. See "You Don't Know Khrushchev Well": The Ouster of the Soviet Leader as a Challenge to Recent Scholarship on Authoritarian Politics for probably more than you ever want to know about it.

The missile crisis ended in 1962 - with the removal of US missiles from Turkey (and possibly Italy), so perhaps Khrushchev got what he wanted. He wasn't removed until 1964 - hardly anything to do with 'using' nukes in Cuba.

Well since everyone else seems to be pitching in, here are my pearls of wisdom  : 

1. I'm comfortable with robust discussions and can ignore points I disagree with. 
2. No forum member is likely to know for certain what Putin intended, will intend or might intendor have much influence on future events.
3. I am surprised that there is not much more interest in the operational and tactical aspects of what is happening e.g. my post on the Kharkiv campaign being a copy of the Wehrmacht's Operation Fredericus.

So here is another thought:
Three times now we have seen the same Ukrainian operational approach after degrading the defense:
a. Create a near encirclement by cutting all but one main road supply line.
b. Use Noise {traditional and social media including panicky Russian bloggers) to magnify the achievement and scare the enemy
c. Await the Russians "retreating to more advantageous positions"
d. Line up special forces ambushes or artillery fire points along the only viable road retreat.

Are they following Mongol Conquest tactics? 
or trying to avoid taking prisoners?
or avoiding the need to reduce desperate "pockets"?   
 
I'm not sure how often we see this systematic destruction of an enemy on the tabletop as opposed to the line up on opposite sides and "have at it" approach.
 
 

It is really hard to know what is going on at an operational tactical level mainly due to Kyiv tightly controlling the media. Apparently really hard for western journalists to embed with Ukrainian forces particularly on the front line. The latest Battlefield:Ukraine podcast provides some good insight into this with Anthony Lloyd

 https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/8-shaping-perceptions/id1617276298?i=1000581093910

Agreed.  But in case forum members dont know, this is a good place to start:
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates
They also use pro-Russian sources and you can also follow the links to the maps in some of those if you are so inclined. Rybar in particular had useful maps of the "retreat to more advantageous positions" in the Kherson front although he is strongly pro-Kremlin.

I wonder how many forum contributors would be supporters of Putin; if only they had been born in Russia.

Quote from: DecemDave on 05 October 2022, 02:28:43 PM3. I am surprised that there is not much more interest in the operational and tactical aspects of what is happening e.g. my post on the Kharkiv campaign being a copy of the Wehrmacht's Operation Fredericus.
...
Are they following Mongol Conquest tactics? 
or trying to avoid taking prisoners?
or avoiding the need to reduce desperate "pockets"?   
...

Interest in the operational and tactical aspects is difficult given the limited reliable information available.
Also, there is some reluctance by some to 'game' such recent events

I suspect these two are significant factors:

• or trying to avoid taking prisoners?
• or avoiding the need to reduce desperate "pockets"? 

Both would consume manpower the Ukrainians badly need elsewhere.

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 05 October 2022, 04:29:08 PMI wonder how many forum contributors would be supporters of Putin; if only they had been born in Russia.

I suspect many of us, if born in Russia, would say we are supporters of Putin in any polls

A possibly interesting side note on prisoners.

A friend of mine was an IT instructor at an Iranian officer cadet school at the beginning of the Iran Iraq war. The Iranians needed somewhere to house one of the early batches of prisoners they had captured, and they ended up in a wired off area at the cadet school. Within a couple of days, the senior staff realised that the cadets were seeing the Iraqis as fellow humans who were suffering. The prisoners were moved out overnight.

Quote from: paulr on 05 October 2022, 06:38:27 PMA possibly interesting side note on prisoners.

A friend of mine was an IT instructor at an Iranian officer cadet school at the beginning of the Iran Iraq war. The Iranians needed somewhere to house one of the early batches of prisoners they had captured, and they ended up in a wired off area at the cadet school. Within a couple of days, the senior staff realised that the cadets were seeing the Iraqis as fellow humans who were suffering. The prisoners were moved out overnight.

So there is hope for humanity

Not while the people who moved them are in charge.

Here's some more background info. from History Hit.