They could, but to what end? They can’t hit a city or major civilian infrastructure without a outsized response (just think of if they nuked a power plant). They don’t have a target that warrents a nuke other wise, unless you think hitting a local command and control will change the war. It will put NATO on the spot (the spot being very anti russian), as well as China and most of the world.

To save money lets not install kill counters on the kill bots sort of thing.

I think that is one possible way this ends, but you might not like just how long they can keep feeding the meat grinder. I do think that if Ukraine can start taking russian land past the border you will start to see a change. The conscripts that as of now get to stay out of the trenches would be put in hard fighting (that the russians have shown they are not good at without taking massive casualties) and that would likely be the final part to russias internal collapse. Ether that happens due to them running out of prisoners/volunteers/poor people or russia itself being attacked.

I think that might be the only operation they have done that worked. But yeah, not a lot to throw around anymore.

TBH I’m unclear on the exact specifics of how you use tactical nukes, but it’s something different that would end the geopolitical stalemate.

Tactical nukes are used (traditionally in doctrine) very differently then strategic nukes. Strategic nukes are mostly what you think of, large salvos of planet ending multi warheaded monsters that are built to NOT be fired (if you fire these you have lost in a way worse then any conventional defeat). Tactical ones on the other hand are meant to be used on large build ups of military forces or critical assets, think of battle enders not war enders. Where doctrine dictates you use a tactical nuke would be when russia staged the massive build up of troops before the full invasion in 2022. This is the issue with tactical nuclear weapons in this conflict, you can’t really spam them without starting WWIII. In fact no one knows how many you could use before the rest of the world retaliates (France might have used one for example in the past but its never going to admit to it, however it is still a topic of discussion many years later). So lets say you have one small yield nuke to use in Ukraine? Where would you drop it? There is not a massive build up of troops, no centralized critical military infrastructure, and if you think about dropping on a city, HA (hope you like living in and of glass because that act will start the process). Actually that is another issue, nukes (even more so the smaller tactical ones) are not immune to getting shot down, so you likely can’t reliably target areas under air defenses.

So to give you a TLDR, tactical nukes are smaller weapons designed to win a battle in a crucial point. Not weapons meant to end a conflict themselves, and not meant for things like glassing cities.

At this point? Wait it out and hope the endless conflict becomes normalized enough. There is no “winning” condition left for the russians now, just degrees of losing. They (russian leadership) clearly only care about the perception of russian power and the perception of victory, so they will never stop unless forced since stopping will be admitting defeat.

• They have no hope of gaining ground at anything that would reasonably end the war in the next 15 years.
• They have no hope of convincing the world they are still a major power that needs to be placated and therefore push Ukraine into a bad deal and claim victory (the us has tried to and as we can see nothing really came out of it)
• They have no hope of grinding down Ukraine in the near term as more and more fighting is automated on the Ukrainian side, while also having several times the losses as Ukraine.
• They have no hope of developing their way into a victory with wunderweapons as they have lost a large amount of their best in ether the trenches or one of the largest brain drains in history (something that is not getting alot of coverage).
• They have no hope of getting any more allies in the conflict to change the tide (North Korea being the last one to “help” does not really encourage nations)

At the end of the day, year, decade of war the russian strategy is just to not “give up”. That is it, nothing more. They might have hopes but it is hard to see any coming to life.

Well to be fair that would track with their current apparent values.

Well I hope they use the correct sacred oils when trying to make the railgun on the USS stupid name work. Do you think they will pray to the machine or to the Donald?

So Canada or Mexico… Oh wait.

They will tell you that you are clearly overreacting, that whatever bullshit excuse given is legitimate.

Later (way past anyones ability to act) they will claim that it was bullshit and they knew it all along.

That’s not fair the people back then where trying to innovative and grow, nothing like whatever the us is doing.

Well shit, let’s set this up then.

Might have to wait to see if they get 5 people first.

Are we seeing different links?

This whole thread does not make you or the dbzer0 community look the way you hope. Honestly this reads like some hexbear level horseshit. If you have some actual evidence please just post a screen shot or a link to the actual thing you want to show us.

Is this the part you wanted to highlight? Because this seems to be about you being a pro china genocide denier who was down voted for that point. I don’t get how you are getting “full zionist” from this.

So no?

I don’t think the conclusion you have reached is reasonable. By the logic you are running on every community is every bad thing anyone has ever posted and every ban would be grounds for de-federalization.

Is that the same person?

• Source needed

Please someone send this to uplifting news.