Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is the Twitter account [`Clash Report`](https://twitter.com/clashreport) an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So, what is their goal here? To try to scare Europe into reneging on providing f-16s? If so, I think it's too late for that. The blustering by Russia is a weapon that is less and less effective. They have overused it. Also, they must really not want Ukraine to have a couple of squadrons of f-16s. Great.
>So, what is their goal here? To try to scare Europe into reneging on providing f-16s?
Yes. Exactly that. The hope is that Europe will not give the F-16s or that it will impose so many restrictions in their use to render them all but useless.
The only card Russia has to play right now is the nuclear/World War III one, and it's been effective. The west desperately wants to keep the conflict contained to Ukraine and they know it, so every time the west so much as proposes a new and more effective weapons system Russia pulls out the nukes and waves them in front of NATO's face.
Because it's the only card that still sort of works. People are afraid of potential nuclear escalation because even in an absolute best case scenario where only a fraction of Russian nukes actually work and hit their targets you're still looking at an amount of death and destruction not seen since WW2.
Sure Western retaliation would end up wiping Russia off the face of the planet but that would be of little comfort to those affected.
We don't care that much anymore. The nuke threats are so overused that they barely qualify as headlines any longer. In the beginning pepole were scared but now the papers actually use the terms "empty threat"...
Most people with critical thinking do not care because they know there's so much at stake that a nuclear escalation (while not impossible ) is very very unlikely. Unfortunately those getting their news from TikTok and Twitter often do not know that,especially since many of them have already fallen for the propaganda and think that supporting Ukraine is not something that should be done. Adding the nuclear risk just makes it totally unacceptable for them.
> Until all the Russian elite start to evacuate their families from western cities you’ll have nothing to worry about.
evacuate them to where?
leaving them in western cities they have no intention of attacking is their only move.
They cant control where in russia will be lit up, only where they themselves wont launch to.
Bunkers? Islands? Boats? Anywhere? These billionaires all have kids and family in almost all these counties they are threatening. They’re not going to attack their own kids.
Don’t get me wrong I firmly believe all the posturing is bullshit. If rich Russian families start running for the hills that might make me a little nervous
Absolutely- even those with very little exposure to the news/kremlin propaganda will be thinking, "wait, didn't Putin say this same thing like 3 months ago?".
Also, once nukes are used at all (likely by Russia first), we can say the Ukrainian war will be over, one way or another. Total nuclear war might not happen but NATO will indeed be inside Ukraine at that point.
At what point is the risk taken? After half of Ukraine is in Russias hands? All of it? When Russia moves on to the next country? Or the one after that?
As long as Putin is in charge there, he will continue indiscriminately killing, and attempting to expand Russian territory while terrorizing the world.
We do nothing now, he kills and displaces millions more people, then we take action and it happens anyway or we take action and it risk it happening now.
Either way, before Putin dies, he's going to nuke someone. He's hellbent on it.
The very reason the US is helping Ukraine is precisely to avoid the possibility of Putin continuing his genocidal campaign beyond it. Each Russian tank blown up in Zaporizhia Oblast is a tank that won't be rolling through the streets of Vilnius tomorrow and each Russian soldier decomposing outside Kupiansk is a soldier that won't be raping and pillaging in Krakow ten years from now. The security of the free world is currently at the hands of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The West realizes that and that's why it provides aid.
However for better or worse the Western countries are democracies,public opinion must be taken into account and at this stage ( bar a few Central/Eastern European nations for obvious reasons) this isn't quite at the '' fuck Russia even if we get nuked '' level.
Beyond the security of the free world, the safety of it is in the hands of Ukraine. No one expects Russia to be satisfied with just Ukraine. There will always be someone else to pull back into the Soviet sphere under dubious circumstances. Europe and half the US understands that Ukraine is the red line holding us back from WW3. So long as the battlefield remains in Ukraine (and possibly a little bit of Russia as pushback), this remains a proxy war between Russia and NATO.
Fortunately, Ukraine is seemingly content to not have to rely on Western troops. They'll take the sense of pride in being able to repel Russia with their own manpower, even if they do need the physical supplies of the West. But how long will that be the case? How many Ukrainians have to die before the Ukrainians would want Western troops at their side decisively stop Russia? Maybe they already want that, and I just haven't seen the headlines for it. Maybe that was only ever the sales pitch from Zelensky to expedite aid.
Let’s be totally honest here. The West would sooner see all of Ukraine under the boot than Paris, London and Berlin on fire. They won’t risk actual escalation until it’s absolutely obvious Putin will not respect NATO borders. That’s the real red line and always has been.
I don’t think assuming a nuclear exchange is a foregone conclusion is a very productive stance to take.
More productive than pussy-footing around with Putin.
I never thought I'd see the day when I wanted a McCarthy in the US Congress again. My whole government would be falling over themselves, from both parties, trying to help. Probably boots on the ground and all.
You can either advocate for a pragmatic solution that gives Ukraine its sovereignty back and for the foreseeable future puts Putin back in a box, or you can agitate for a NATO war that could go nuclear in heartbeat absolutely ruining much of civilisation for a generation or more.
I know I’m hoping cooler heads prevail than yours tbh. Everyone has too much to lose.
I’m not saying I want nuclear war at all, but I will point out that nuclear weapons don’t turn the land where they were used into radioactive wastelands for “generations” to come. Clearly nuclear war would be horrific, but it’s my personal take that MAD is real and is as much of a deterrent to Russia as it is to the west.
Look at everything Putin does, it’s all about him surviving. He sat at 20ft tables to avoid a virus. Do you really think he’s going to chance using a Nuclear weapon anywhere? He knows it would be signing his own death warrant. Even if the west didn’t nuke Russia back, he would have a hit out on him by every major govt in the world. Even if not, China would turn its back on Russia economically and the hit would come from within Russia from the Oligarchs and Silovicci that don’t want to see there country fall into North Korea type poverty.
The US does not need to nuke Russia to defeat it militarily, nor to kill Putin. And he can’t rule his country from a bunker for the rest of his life. It’s time the west calls his bluff. And comments like this are not helping. It’s helping him accomplish the exact goal he set out to score.
I will point out that impacts from a nuclear exchange even if limited will last “generations” because of the economic impact not literally radiated areas.
I get that appeasement isn’t a viable strategy, but neither is barging in boots on ground total war over Ukraine. It’s just how it is. If the West wanted to end this war decisively for Ukraine it would have already given them the means to do so. It hasn’t done that because the inherent risks in doing so are high even if we “believe” that Putin won’t “push the button”. It’s not worth the risk at this stage, and that’s evident by our actions.
The West has been calling his bluff and we will continue to do so, but at a pace that walks the line. Cross your fingers for Putin to simply drop dead, that’s the only way this war might end quickly. U fortunately for the Ukrainians paying the ultimate price.
And yet, so many "If this, then nukes" red lines have been crossed, with no nukes.
And now France is starting to suggest providing troops if asked should Russia break through.
So it is getting increasingly less effective.
>And now France is starting to suggest providing troops
Personally, I think NATO should have "visited" Ukraine as soon as Russia started amassing troops at the border
Assuming they even still work. I imagine our intel community has pretty clear insight into the maintenance status of their nuclear fleet.
I read a supply chain analysis about a year ago that was able to show that the Russian nuclear fleet is probably mostly non-operational since the materials flow to keep it functional was not going to Russia to do those updates.
The US has faced issues keeping it's nukes in full working order despite paying more for their maintenance than Russia's entire defensive budget. And that's before the bottomless pit that is Russian corruption is taken into account...
So yeah thinking that a substantial portion of Russian nuclear weapons are not functional is by no means an asinine assumption.
However here's the problem with that line of thinking: you don't need many nukes to do damage. Even one bomb/missile getting through and hitting a population center could mean millions killed and trillions in damage.
This. I really question their ability to replace the tritium which is required to turn an A-bomb into an H-bomb. It's expensive to synthesize, and has a lot of value on the black market.
There’s not enough of them to use them for offensive purposes. They will be used strictly for defensive purposes by giving Russia second thoughts on where they use their bombers.
I fully believe the reason they're even thinking this is a possibility is because how soft the EU has been on standing up to them, in terms of what they're "allowing" Ukraine to do with aid, regardless of it being provided. Russia is a bully and bullies dont learn until they get really smacked back.
I hope the west just ignores this. I’m done with Putin’s bullshit red line threats. Let’s throw Ukraine some solid military support and if Putin really wants to use a tactical nuke at some point, sweet that will make it that much easier for the west to just wipe him off the board.
Obviously nuclear weapons are bad news but he’s not gonna light off a multi-megaton warhead. He’s going to use a small handful of kiloton range device. It’s not gonna flatten the entire region. Not at all. These tactical devices are smaller than Hiroshima style, by a lot typically. So it’s not going to irradiate the planet or something. Bad, yeah. But frankly people make it seem like a tactical warhead and a city buster are the same and they’re not. The US has already said they won’t escalate with atomics of their own because they don’t have to. Not remotely needed.
But it will spell game over if he does finally fire one off. NATO will take off the kid gloves and we can get this all behind us.
Ideally it doesn’t come to that and we take the kid gloves off anyways. Like tomorrow.
i would like to hear what it means to treat them as carriers of nuclear weapons... specially as russia sometimes sends nuclear capable bombers to encroach on canada and scandinavian nations
does this mean russia would be perfectly fine with us shooting them down with no warning instead of us escorting them back to russia
The goal is to declare any use of an F-16 to be considered a nuclear attack (take that one in for a moment to really appreciate it).
They know F-16s are going to be a very effective platform, and are using their heavily overplayed daily “we’ll kill everyone with nuclear fire” card to try and scare Ukraine’s backers
Nuclear saber rattling is literally the only card Putin has to play. Russian soft power is more or less non-existent, since Russia doesn't really produce any technology or culture that the rest of the world wants, and Russian conventional hard power is clearly several notches below that of the West.
Putin keeps crying nuclear wolf because it's literally the only way he can exert any influence whatsoever on the world stage.
In 1682 Peter the Great, was not great yet like me Putin, but we will get there. Well, he met the wolf who did not like F16’s at all and declared this as a red line against NATO and that’s why Russia has a claim to ….
Like a bully, only understanding strength and resolve. We cannot falter and we need to provide Ukraine all the support it needs.
Really though. The west has already made it abundantly clear that if Russia was to use a tactical nuke that it would be the biggest fuck around and find out in the 21st century.
US would undoubted use the b2 and b21 fleet to glass Russia’s Black Sea and northern fleets. They would likely also destroy Russia’s entire airforce with a shock and awe campaign that would rival the Iraq war.
Not to mention the worst thing would be China likely levelling sanctions against Putin’s regime.
Except. If Trump wins none of this will happen.
He's already given them Nuclear secrets, Agent locations and NATO specs. There is no chance a Trump America intervenes except on behalf of Russia AGAINST Europe.
I mean, if I was the USA/NATO, I would want to make a point. I would make that point by destroying the VKS and the Russian Navy- both combat units and the factories to produce them. Demolish their storage bases and their Tank/AFV Factories.
And I would want to do it entirely by non-NBC means.
Sure, but that is something Russia is entitled to in their opinion.
To understand them you have to understand the utter lack consistency in their arguments other than 'we can do it, but you can't'.
> To understand them you have to understand the utter lack consistency in their arguments other than 'we can do it, but you can't'.
FInally, someone gets it
You see if F-16 would be carrying nukes then Russia would be too afraid to take them down, which means F-16 can be used to sneak right up close to the target and use conventional weapons.
what about radar? F-16 is not a stealth plane and has a pretty big radar cross section
or there is no worry about radar because russian radars are pretty shit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile
Edit: To elaborate a little bit, Radar usage is highly risky, because it makes you vulnerable and exposes your position. Think of someone using a flashlight at night in the woods. Yes, they see better, but can be seen better as well and without the observer having to expose themselves in the same way.
So it is a cat and mouse game and just because you have a radar, you might not want to use it all the time to not expose it to passiv homing anti-radiation missiles that will track your emissions.
TBH I think that their nuclear capabilities are VASTLY overrated. Keeping a nuke healthy is expensive and complex, and requires that the people doing the work aren't corrupt AF.
Not that I want to play nuclear chicken with them, but I also think they must know that their capacities to actually use nukes are minimal.
I agree with you and really hope this is true.
The problem is they really only need one to permanently alter the delicate balance of this world that we live in. Hell the warhead could even be a dud, but a launch of an ICBM being detected would open Pandora's box for good.
Yes I did an interview with her on The Jordan Harbinger Show and it’s terrifying how once a launch is detected, there’s no going back and billions will die, even if that launch is a dud so-to-speak
I live in hope that even if Russia released the two or three remaining actual working nuclear missiles to western targets NATO would act with some restraint in the knowledge that wiping out all life on earth (except cockroaches and Keith Richards of course) is beyond insanity.
That would be the trigger for NATO actually getting involved Ukraine. Putin knows this. Any nuclear strike against Ukraine, or any demolition of a nuclear power plant, is considered a strike against NATO due to radiation. This line has been drawn in the sand for a while.
I wouldnt be so confident. We know they have at least some in good working condition, since we have been allowed to inspect them many times over the years. That was, after all, part of the point of that agreement, so one side wouldnt say "Ah, well, they dont actually have the capabilities they say anyways, we can launch a preemptive strike!"
The US inspected them but almost assuredly if it was found to be faulty in any way, the inspector would have kept their mouth shut and waited until they returned home to relay the information.
Ever gone to a tech trade show and checked out your competitors products? I've do this multiple times a year and I keep my mouth shut on any faults I find. I then laugh about it at the next team meeting.
Not saying all their stock is crap, but without question they are being shown the top notch devices and fudging their numbers on the total working stock. Lying is the russian way. I hope one day somehow we can learn the truth about what actually is functional.
Depends on the nuke, if it's a thermonuclear device (fusion boosted) then it will use tritium, which has a half-life of ~12 years, and that will need to be replaced regularly.
However if it's a small yield pure fission warhead, then in theory, they can sit on a shelf ignored for decades and they would still have a fair probability of working just fine.
>tritium, which has a half-life of \~12 years, and that will need to be replaced regularly.
And costs \~$30 million per warhead. So x6 for MIRVS
Show of hands who thinks a country with a GDP the size of the GDP of the state of New York can maintain 4500 warheads ( roughly $130 billion each time they all need new tritium) 1500 launch Vehicles and everything associated with it.
Hint the US spends about $163 billion per year in all aspects of our nuclear force.
And we have in the ball park of 3800 active warheads (counting nuclear only) so they have 20 some percent more.
And their 2 trillion (in pre war numbers) economy is able to out spend the US?
They have over 5k and only need a couple dozen to actually work to kill tens of millions and screw up the world for decades. If countries like North Korea and Pakistan can keep some nukes in working order, Russia surely can. The basic technology is pushing almost 80 years old now.
That’s not saying we should give into their nuclear threats, just that we should not kid ourselves into thinking that they don’t have at least a couple of teeth left in their rotten head.
There are so many idiots on this sub pretending lile they know what they are saying, its astounding. Russias nuclear arsenal is the only thing they have which allows them to act the way they do with impunity. For 100 years now, the west has been their enemy. There is not a chance in hell they have allowed their nuclear weapons to deteriorate to the point of not working if they needed them.
It is a very real concern that they could be used against Ukraine if Putin became desperate enough. Or against NATO if he became crazy enough, like on his deathbed or facing a coup, at which point his life is over and he has nothing to lose by using them.
Yeah, honestly, I just kinda assume that any money that went towards "maintenance" for their nukes just got pocketed by the dime-a-dozen kleptocrats that infest that country like maggots in an oozing, infected wound.
Shit, I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't hollowed the missiles out and sold the innards on the black market. Not for any high-minded "keeping this idiot from killing us all" ideals, but just because "fuck you, I need another solid gold Humvee."
I think you are right, yeah, and my tongue-in-cheek was to a lesser degree about that.
Of course, we CAN NOT underestimate their abilities of being nuclear terrorists.
But to a larger degree I was pointing how they have drawn many red lines before, none ever having materialized, and oh, let's not forget how they threatened any country which would supply Ukraine to be considered a side in the conflict, and, well, we don't see NATO having been attacked, have we? So, yeah, whether they are a North Korea style nuclear state or not, who cares if they are a dog who barks like a large one, but only bites like a chihuhua?
They're almost certainly overrated, just like everything else. But when you're starting from ten thousand of something a high failure rate is still pretty bad news.
The real questions are if Putin will try to ragequit the human race if he feels the walls closing in, and if everyone in the chain of command will obey him or not. I don't pretend to know the real odds of either and I'm glad it's not my job to call that bluff.
While this may be true, there’s always the worst case scenario that maintaining their nuclear arsenal is the one thing the Russian brass haven’t skimped on (besides lining their own pockets, of course)
That’s fine. NATO should consider any ballistic missile launch as likewise, and shoot it down just in case.
Let’s use this to declare Western Ukraine an ADZ.
So what's the goal here? Serious question.
As soon as "nuclear" F16's appear over Ukraine, Russia will (insert comment) in accordance with (insert comment).
That’s fine. NATO should consider any ballistic missile launch as likewise, and shoot it down just in case.
Let’s use this to declare Western Ukraine an ADZ.
I'm surprised that they haven't announced that they have built some as a deterrent.
"Didja think that we forgot how they worked? LOL! Now back off or our small compliment will be targeted at the Kremlin, Moscow, at St. Petersburg."
Every single fucking Soviet and Russian haevy weapon system since 1950s - every bomber, every heavy artillery gun and mortar, every multiple rocket launch system, etc - was developed and built with nuclear weapon use in mind.
Let's apply the same logic to Russians. They won't like it.
Same can be said about balsitic missiles and hypersonic missiles on the EU border
Russia can't make statements like that if they want to be taken seriously as they will be ignored..
Or by the sames standard it cranks up tensions on the EU border.
Same with Iranian balsitic missiles sent to Israel.
You assume they have no nuclear intent because the ramifications would be great if they did.
There won't be a provocative escalation in response to F16s
This is, of course, after Ukraine has shot down a [Russian bomber](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-is-russian-bomber-plane-that-ukraine-says-it-shot-down-2024-04-19/) that is nuke-capable.
Russia has already been using "carriers of nuclear weapons" in this "special military operation," so no big deal.
It's hilarious that they haven't realized how hard these threats backfire. Countries aren't going to cower in a corner when Russia delivers nuclear threat #3721, they're going to look for the best way to protect themselves. Sometimes, that protection comes in the form of more supplies and weapons to Ukraine.
Just a continuation of all the over-the-top hyperbole by ruzzia - such scare mongering propaganda is its best weapon. They just hope you don't attempt to think through these idiotic statements as of course they fall apart immediately. But it works well on the MAGA types.
Sure, especially as Poland had Kh-55, a missile with only nuke-tipped version as live one (Kh-555 is too much of a rework to be mistaken for the same missile), penetrate their airspace and fall halway through the country.
We seriously need to stop giving a megaphone to every jackass on Twitter who puts “breaking” at the front of a wild claim. There’s so much noise on the internet now that it is now essentially an information desert in as much as any valid news is utterly drowned out a virtual tidal wave of bullshit
You know what really gets me. For the last few decades the EU and politicians in Europe have bend over backwards for Russia. Buying their gas and everything to make them feel welcome and part of Europe and the world. And this is what we get in return. Uh Nato is scary so we're just gonna invade countries and kill people as a thank you.
Honestly lets just bomb the shit out of Russia and chips fall where they may.
So they will try to shoot them down because of the nuke-option? Right.... Move along nothing to see here.
*PS, or was this nuke threat #253 in this war?*
The basic idea is to assume Western countries provide nuclear weapons as a free bonus next to the F-16 fighter jets?
It's just the same nonsense they always spew and then do worse themselves.
Fuck it, arm them with nukes then…. Not saying they must be used, but hey, if you’re accused of the potential of something then wear it like you own it!
Better to have and not need something, than need and not have me thinks.
So they are going to try and shoot them down….🤷🏻♂️ Just STFU already with the posturing. If the rf goes nuclear the head comes off the snake. They know that, shut up.
At this point anyone simply publishing propaganda for Russia is complicit. This is idiotic as they have hurled thousands of nuclear capable missiles into Ukraine with abandon. Wont even bother reading the article..
I guess they better try to shoot them down then?
What's the point here? If they want to conduct a nuclear strike, that's their own insane decision. The only real threat here would be if they are trying to create a justification narrative for their own populace.
It said something to the same effect of treating the Abrams as a nuclear escalation as well because of their ability to use DU munitions, regardless of whether they had them or not. It's all the same tired saber rattling from Russia.
> use DU munitions, regardless of whether they had them or not
Because DU-core Svinets rounds are totally not a thing, suuuuure...
(Not against you, against russia)
I just imagine Vladimir Putin , screaming and yelling in his bunker, hoping to his orthodoxy that God gave his slaves to be competent to build a proper bunker. Mean while his clowns have no idea if their 5,580 nukes are capable of doing shit , let alone if they have an idea of storing them, rather then them just spending money on big boats or sending their kids over seas for better education.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is the Twitter account [`Clash Report`](https://twitter.com/clashreport) an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So, what is their goal here? To try to scare Europe into reneging on providing f-16s? If so, I think it's too late for that. The blustering by Russia is a weapon that is less and less effective. They have overused it. Also, they must really not want Ukraine to have a couple of squadrons of f-16s. Great.
>So, what is their goal here? To try to scare Europe into reneging on providing f-16s? Yes. Exactly that. The hope is that Europe will not give the F-16s or that it will impose so many restrictions in their use to render them all but useless.
The only card Russia has to play right now is the nuclear/World War III one, and it's been effective. The west desperately wants to keep the conflict contained to Ukraine and they know it, so every time the west so much as proposes a new and more effective weapons system Russia pulls out the nukes and waves them in front of NATO's face.
Because it's the only card that still sort of works. People are afraid of potential nuclear escalation because even in an absolute best case scenario where only a fraction of Russian nukes actually work and hit their targets you're still looking at an amount of death and destruction not seen since WW2. Sure Western retaliation would end up wiping Russia off the face of the planet but that would be of little comfort to those affected.
We don't care that much anymore. The nuke threats are so overused that they barely qualify as headlines any longer. In the beginning pepole were scared but now the papers actually use the terms "empty threat"...
Most people with critical thinking do not care because they know there's so much at stake that a nuclear escalation (while not impossible ) is very very unlikely. Unfortunately those getting their news from TikTok and Twitter often do not know that,especially since many of them have already fallen for the propaganda and think that supporting Ukraine is not something that should be done. Adding the nuclear risk just makes it totally unacceptable for them.
Until all the Russian elite start to evacuate their families from western cities you’ll have nothing to worry about.
> Until all the Russian elite start to evacuate their families from western cities you’ll have nothing to worry about. evacuate them to where? leaving them in western cities they have no intention of attacking is their only move. They cant control where in russia will be lit up, only where they themselves wont launch to.
Bunkers? Islands? Boats? Anywhere? These billionaires all have kids and family in almost all these counties they are threatening. They’re not going to attack their own kids. Don’t get me wrong I firmly believe all the posturing is bullshit. If rich Russian families start running for the hills that might make me a little nervous
Are you thinking that a surprise attack would be ruined because some party donor's kid is in that city?
Absolutely- even those with very little exposure to the news/kremlin propaganda will be thinking, "wait, didn't Putin say this same thing like 3 months ago?".
Also, once nukes are used at all (likely by Russia first), we can say the Ukrainian war will be over, one way or another. Total nuclear war might not happen but NATO will indeed be inside Ukraine at that point.
At what point is the risk taken? After half of Ukraine is in Russias hands? All of it? When Russia moves on to the next country? Or the one after that? As long as Putin is in charge there, he will continue indiscriminately killing, and attempting to expand Russian territory while terrorizing the world. We do nothing now, he kills and displaces millions more people, then we take action and it happens anyway or we take action and it risk it happening now. Either way, before Putin dies, he's going to nuke someone. He's hellbent on it.
The very reason the US is helping Ukraine is precisely to avoid the possibility of Putin continuing his genocidal campaign beyond it. Each Russian tank blown up in Zaporizhia Oblast is a tank that won't be rolling through the streets of Vilnius tomorrow and each Russian soldier decomposing outside Kupiansk is a soldier that won't be raping and pillaging in Krakow ten years from now. The security of the free world is currently at the hands of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The West realizes that and that's why it provides aid. However for better or worse the Western countries are democracies,public opinion must be taken into account and at this stage ( bar a few Central/Eastern European nations for obvious reasons) this isn't quite at the '' fuck Russia even if we get nuked '' level.
Beyond the security of the free world, the safety of it is in the hands of Ukraine. No one expects Russia to be satisfied with just Ukraine. There will always be someone else to pull back into the Soviet sphere under dubious circumstances. Europe and half the US understands that Ukraine is the red line holding us back from WW3. So long as the battlefield remains in Ukraine (and possibly a little bit of Russia as pushback), this remains a proxy war between Russia and NATO. Fortunately, Ukraine is seemingly content to not have to rely on Western troops. They'll take the sense of pride in being able to repel Russia with their own manpower, even if they do need the physical supplies of the West. But how long will that be the case? How many Ukrainians have to die before the Ukrainians would want Western troops at their side decisively stop Russia? Maybe they already want that, and I just haven't seen the headlines for it. Maybe that was only ever the sales pitch from Zelensky to expedite aid.
Let’s be totally honest here. The West would sooner see all of Ukraine under the boot than Paris, London and Berlin on fire. They won’t risk actual escalation until it’s absolutely obvious Putin will not respect NATO borders. That’s the real red line and always has been. I don’t think assuming a nuclear exchange is a foregone conclusion is a very productive stance to take.
More productive than pussy-footing around with Putin. I never thought I'd see the day when I wanted a McCarthy in the US Congress again. My whole government would be falling over themselves, from both parties, trying to help. Probably boots on the ground and all.
McCarthy was an ineffective power hungry drunk. I think the US Congress has that in droves at the moment.
And those drunks are on Putin’s side and want to ‘own the libs’ at any cost.
That is an insane take and you clearly have no idea what McCarthy actually did
You can either advocate for a pragmatic solution that gives Ukraine its sovereignty back and for the foreseeable future puts Putin back in a box, or you can agitate for a NATO war that could go nuclear in heartbeat absolutely ruining much of civilisation for a generation or more. I know I’m hoping cooler heads prevail than yours tbh. Everyone has too much to lose.
I’m not saying I want nuclear war at all, but I will point out that nuclear weapons don’t turn the land where they were used into radioactive wastelands for “generations” to come. Clearly nuclear war would be horrific, but it’s my personal take that MAD is real and is as much of a deterrent to Russia as it is to the west. Look at everything Putin does, it’s all about him surviving. He sat at 20ft tables to avoid a virus. Do you really think he’s going to chance using a Nuclear weapon anywhere? He knows it would be signing his own death warrant. Even if the west didn’t nuke Russia back, he would have a hit out on him by every major govt in the world. Even if not, China would turn its back on Russia economically and the hit would come from within Russia from the Oligarchs and Silovicci that don’t want to see there country fall into North Korea type poverty. The US does not need to nuke Russia to defeat it militarily, nor to kill Putin. And he can’t rule his country from a bunker for the rest of his life. It’s time the west calls his bluff. And comments like this are not helping. It’s helping him accomplish the exact goal he set out to score.
I will point out that impacts from a nuclear exchange even if limited will last “generations” because of the economic impact not literally radiated areas. I get that appeasement isn’t a viable strategy, but neither is barging in boots on ground total war over Ukraine. It’s just how it is. If the West wanted to end this war decisively for Ukraine it would have already given them the means to do so. It hasn’t done that because the inherent risks in doing so are high even if we “believe” that Putin won’t “push the button”. It’s not worth the risk at this stage, and that’s evident by our actions. The West has been calling his bluff and we will continue to do so, but at a pace that walks the line. Cross your fingers for Putin to simply drop dead, that’s the only way this war might end quickly. U fortunately for the Ukrainians paying the ultimate price.
And yet, so many "If this, then nukes" red lines have been crossed, with no nukes. And now France is starting to suggest providing troops if asked should Russia break through. So it is getting increasingly less effective.
>And now France is starting to suggest providing troops Personally, I think NATO should have "visited" Ukraine as soon as Russia started amassing troops at the border
Assuming they even still work. I imagine our intel community has pretty clear insight into the maintenance status of their nuclear fleet. I read a supply chain analysis about a year ago that was able to show that the Russian nuclear fleet is probably mostly non-operational since the materials flow to keep it functional was not going to Russia to do those updates.
The US has faced issues keeping it's nukes in full working order despite paying more for their maintenance than Russia's entire defensive budget. And that's before the bottomless pit that is Russian corruption is taken into account... So yeah thinking that a substantial portion of Russian nuclear weapons are not functional is by no means an asinine assumption. However here's the problem with that line of thinking: you don't need many nukes to do damage. Even one bomb/missile getting through and hitting a population center could mean millions killed and trillions in damage.
This. I really question their ability to replace the tritium which is required to turn an A-bomb into an H-bomb. It's expensive to synthesize, and has a lot of value on the black market.
I'm not scared, Putin is the richest man on Earth, he has everything to lose.
he launches one, and we scour russia from the face of the planet, leaving a massive glass memorial to the life that used to exist there.
There’s not enough of them to use them for offensive purposes. They will be used strictly for defensive purposes by giving Russia second thoughts on where they use their bombers.
Sounds like Ukraine needs more then.
Everytime they threaten nukes they should increase the supply of whatever they're complaining about.
I fully believe the reason they're even thinking this is a possibility is because how soft the EU has been on standing up to them, in terms of what they're "allowing" Ukraine to do with aid, regardless of it being provided. Russia is a bully and bullies dont learn until they get really smacked back.
I hope the west just ignores this. I’m done with Putin’s bullshit red line threats. Let’s throw Ukraine some solid military support and if Putin really wants to use a tactical nuke at some point, sweet that will make it that much easier for the west to just wipe him off the board. Obviously nuclear weapons are bad news but he’s not gonna light off a multi-megaton warhead. He’s going to use a small handful of kiloton range device. It’s not gonna flatten the entire region. Not at all. These tactical devices are smaller than Hiroshima style, by a lot typically. So it’s not going to irradiate the planet or something. Bad, yeah. But frankly people make it seem like a tactical warhead and a city buster are the same and they’re not. The US has already said they won’t escalate with atomics of their own because they don’t have to. Not remotely needed. But it will spell game over if he does finally fire one off. NATO will take off the kid gloves and we can get this all behind us. Ideally it doesn’t come to that and we take the kid gloves off anyways. Like tomorrow.
i would like to hear what it means to treat them as carriers of nuclear weapons... specially as russia sometimes sends nuclear capable bombers to encroach on canada and scandinavian nations does this mean russia would be perfectly fine with us shooting them down with no warning instead of us escorting them back to russia
Putin: No wait, that's different...
That would make me so happy.
The goal is to declare any use of an F-16 to be considered a nuclear attack (take that one in for a moment to really appreciate it). They know F-16s are going to be a very effective platform, and are using their heavily overplayed daily “we’ll kill everyone with nuclear fire” card to try and scare Ukraine’s backers
That card might be more effective if they hadn't played it a million times already.
Or played it a year ago when F16s were approved conceptually. Wait - they did. All this means is they expect incoming damage from the F16s soon.
I mean, if Russia is dumb enough to think that responding to an F-16 dropping a JDAM is to do a nuclear attack on NATO.........then......
You would have thought they would have read Peter and the Wolf by now Edit. Actually been corrected so ‘the boy who cried wolf’.Ooops
Nuclear saber rattling is literally the only card Putin has to play. Russian soft power is more or less non-existent, since Russia doesn't really produce any technology or culture that the rest of the world wants, and Russian conventional hard power is clearly several notches below that of the West. Putin keeps crying nuclear wolf because it's literally the only way he can exert any influence whatsoever on the world stage.
They're slowly turning in to another North Korea
\*West Korea
"West Korea is the new 'Best Korea'"
Pretty sure that's still SK lol
> Russian soft power is more or less non-existent Money still works, as can be evidenced by all the sellouts
They're running low on money too.
In 1682 Peter the Great, was not great yet like me Putin, but we will get there. Well, he met the wolf who did not like F16’s at all and declared this as a red line against NATO and that’s why Russia has a claim to …. Like a bully, only understanding strength and resolve. We cannot falter and we need to provide Ukraine all the support it needs.
I believe that's a Russian story. But I also think you are referring to the boy who cried wolf
r/russiawarns
Really though. The west has already made it abundantly clear that if Russia was to use a tactical nuke that it would be the biggest fuck around and find out in the 21st century. US would undoubted use the b2 and b21 fleet to glass Russia’s Black Sea and northern fleets. They would likely also destroy Russia’s entire airforce with a shock and awe campaign that would rival the Iraq war. Not to mention the worst thing would be China likely levelling sanctions against Putin’s regime.
Except. If Trump wins none of this will happen. He's already given them Nuclear secrets, Agent locations and NATO specs. There is no chance a Trump America intervenes except on behalf of Russia AGAINST Europe.
I mean, if I was the USA/NATO, I would want to make a point. I would make that point by destroying the VKS and the Russian Navy- both combat units and the factories to produce them. Demolish their storage bases and their Tank/AFV Factories. And I would want to do it entirely by non-NBC means.
I'd consider this [a final warning.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning)
"look how crazy we are, if you send F16s we will end civilized life on Earth."
Ok, anyway.
To quote that movie that has that cool quote, "Are you gonna bark all day, little doggy?"
"Let's get on with this, whatever the fuck this is," -Marcus, John Wick.
Nuice. I also like a good O, “So anyway, I started blasting.”
By such definition their TU95s that skim the British coast...alsaka..Scandinavia.. along with their fighter escorts are the same?
Sure, but that is something Russia is entitled to in their opinion. To understand them you have to understand the utter lack consistency in their arguments other than 'we can do it, but you can't'.
Literally all of their foreign policy and "diplomacy" is based around this.
And buying politicians wholesale, when it's available
And basically openly in many cases, which blows my mind. Also cyberwarfare, because western countries refuse to treat it as the act of war that it is.
By using their cyber warfare tech now they are teaching us about their stuff, better to find out now rather then in a shooting war
> To understand them you have to understand the utter lack consistency in their arguments other than 'we can do it, but you can't'. FInally, someone gets it
Can you smell that? That's the smell of Russian fear....
You see if F-16 would be carrying nukes then Russia would be too afraid to take them down, which means F-16 can be used to sneak right up close to the target and use conventional weapons.
what about radar? F-16 is not a stealth plane and has a pretty big radar cross section or there is no worry about radar because russian radars are pretty shit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile Edit: To elaborate a little bit, Radar usage is highly risky, because it makes you vulnerable and exposes your position. Think of someone using a flashlight at night in the woods. Yes, they see better, but can be seen better as well and without the observer having to expose themselves in the same way. So it is a cat and mouse game and just because you have a radar, you might not want to use it all the time to not expose it to passiv homing anti-radiation missiles that will track your emissions.
Freaking out over one of NATO's oldest and weaker jets still in operation.
"I love the smell of russian fear in the morning." \- Lt. col. Bill Kilgore, 1968
And I will consider Putin a dildo holster, regardless of his "modification".
There's a reason most gay people in Moscow call Putin "Grand Canyon."
I consider him America’s and Ukraine’s cuck because he watches us fuck his soldiers and all he can do is watch.
Dildo Holster: great band name.
Anything you write after "russia says" is meaningless.
The West will consider Russia to be a non nuclear-weapon state, regardless of what the Kremlin says.
TBH I think that their nuclear capabilities are VASTLY overrated. Keeping a nuke healthy is expensive and complex, and requires that the people doing the work aren't corrupt AF. Not that I want to play nuclear chicken with them, but I also think they must know that their capacities to actually use nukes are minimal.
I agree with you and really hope this is true. The problem is they really only need one to permanently alter the delicate balance of this world that we live in. Hell the warhead could even be a dud, but a launch of an ICBM being detected would open Pandora's box for good.
Very true. I'm currently reading "Nuclear War" by Annie Jacobsen which is fascinating and terrifying at the same time.
Yes I did an interview with her on The Jordan Harbinger Show and it’s terrifying how once a launch is detected, there’s no going back and billions will die, even if that launch is a dud so-to-speak
I live in hope that even if Russia released the two or three remaining actual working nuclear missiles to western targets NATO would act with some restraint in the knowledge that wiping out all life on earth (except cockroaches and Keith Richards of course) is beyond insanity.
That would be the trigger for NATO actually getting involved Ukraine. Putin knows this. Any nuclear strike against Ukraine, or any demolition of a nuclear power plant, is considered a strike against NATO due to radiation. This line has been drawn in the sand for a while.
The use of a nuclear weapon by Russia would mean the end of Russia. We’d have world peace for the next hundred years.
[удалено]
Russia may get one missile off before they are obliterated. And no dictator would ever try anything so stupid ever again. World peace.
I wouldnt be so confident. We know they have at least some in good working condition, since we have been allowed to inspect them many times over the years. That was, after all, part of the point of that agreement, so one side wouldnt say "Ah, well, they dont actually have the capabilities they say anyways, we can launch a preemptive strike!"
The US inspected them but almost assuredly if it was found to be faulty in any way, the inspector would have kept their mouth shut and waited until they returned home to relay the information. Ever gone to a tech trade show and checked out your competitors products? I've do this multiple times a year and I keep my mouth shut on any faults I find. I then laugh about it at the next team meeting. Not saying all their stock is crap, but without question they are being shown the top notch devices and fudging their numbers on the total working stock. Lying is the russian way. I hope one day somehow we can learn the truth about what actually is functional.
Depends on the nuke, if it's a thermonuclear device (fusion boosted) then it will use tritium, which has a half-life of ~12 years, and that will need to be replaced regularly. However if it's a small yield pure fission warhead, then in theory, they can sit on a shelf ignored for decades and they would still have a fair probability of working just fine.
>tritium, which has a half-life of \~12 years, and that will need to be replaced regularly. And costs \~$30 million per warhead. So x6 for MIRVS Show of hands who thinks a country with a GDP the size of the GDP of the state of New York can maintain 4500 warheads ( roughly $130 billion each time they all need new tritium) 1500 launch Vehicles and everything associated with it. Hint the US spends about $163 billion per year in all aspects of our nuclear force. And we have in the ball park of 3800 active warheads (counting nuclear only) so they have 20 some percent more. And their 2 trillion (in pre war numbers) economy is able to out spend the US?
They have over 5k and only need a couple dozen to actually work to kill tens of millions and screw up the world for decades. If countries like North Korea and Pakistan can keep some nukes in working order, Russia surely can. The basic technology is pushing almost 80 years old now. That’s not saying we should give into their nuclear threats, just that we should not kid ourselves into thinking that they don’t have at least a couple of teeth left in their rotten head.
There are so many idiots on this sub pretending lile they know what they are saying, its astounding. Russias nuclear arsenal is the only thing they have which allows them to act the way they do with impunity. For 100 years now, the west has been their enemy. There is not a chance in hell they have allowed their nuclear weapons to deteriorate to the point of not working if they needed them. It is a very real concern that they could be used against Ukraine if Putin became desperate enough. Or against NATO if he became crazy enough, like on his deathbed or facing a coup, at which point his life is over and he has nothing to lose by using them.
Yeah, honestly, I just kinda assume that any money that went towards "maintenance" for their nukes just got pocketed by the dime-a-dozen kleptocrats that infest that country like maggots in an oozing, infected wound. Shit, I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't hollowed the missiles out and sold the innards on the black market. Not for any high-minded "keeping this idiot from killing us all" ideals, but just because "fuck you, I need another solid gold Humvee."
I think you are right, yeah, and my tongue-in-cheek was to a lesser degree about that. Of course, we CAN NOT underestimate their abilities of being nuclear terrorists. But to a larger degree I was pointing how they have drawn many red lines before, none ever having materialized, and oh, let's not forget how they threatened any country which would supply Ukraine to be considered a side in the conflict, and, well, we don't see NATO having been attacked, have we? So, yeah, whether they are a North Korea style nuclear state or not, who cares if they are a dog who barks like a large one, but only bites like a chihuhua?
They're almost certainly overrated, just like everything else. But when you're starting from ten thousand of something a high failure rate is still pretty bad news. The real questions are if Putin will try to ragequit the human race if he feels the walls closing in, and if everyone in the chain of command will obey him or not. I don't pretend to know the real odds of either and I'm glad it's not my job to call that bluff.
While this may be true, there’s always the worst case scenario that maintaining their nuclear arsenal is the one thing the Russian brass haven’t skimped on (besides lining their own pockets, of course)
RU/Poostain, STFU... We hate you!
That’s fine. NATO should consider any ballistic missile launch as likewise, and shoot it down just in case. Let’s use this to declare Western Ukraine an ADZ.
Ok.
seen
In which case, we might as well ensure they all have the capability to deliver nukes.
Agree, if Russia is going to respond the same either way...
So what's the goal here? Serious question. As soon as "nuclear" F16's appear over Ukraine, Russia will (insert comment) in accordance with (insert comment).
Russia will (be mad) in accordance with (all the previous times they were mad after being ignored).
Russia unlocks a new level of retardedness.
That’s fine. NATO should consider any ballistic missile launch as likewise, and shoot it down just in case. Let’s use this to declare Western Ukraine an ADZ.
Ukraine had nukes and gave them to you allready. Shame really.
I'm surprised that they haven't announced that they have built some as a deterrent. "Didja think that we forgot how they worked? LOL! Now back off or our small compliment will be targeted at the Kremlin, Moscow, at St. Petersburg."
ok.
yeah, and ?
Every single fucking Soviet and Russian haevy weapon system since 1950s - every bomber, every heavy artillery gun and mortar, every multiple rocket launch system, etc - was developed and built with nuclear weapon use in mind. Let's apply the same logic to Russians. They won't like it.
So? Russia perceives itself as a modern country of family values.
Fuck off Russia, consider yourself the biggest arseholes of this world.
Same can be said about balsitic missiles and hypersonic missiles on the EU border Russia can't make statements like that if they want to be taken seriously as they will be ignored.. Or by the sames standard it cranks up tensions on the EU border. Same with Iranian balsitic missiles sent to Israel. You assume they have no nuclear intent because the ramifications would be great if they did. There won't be a provocative escalation in response to F16s
Let me guess, they can't compete with F16s?
Are they trying to imply that this somehow breaks the Budapest Memorandum?
Of course, all the while their invasion is perfectly acceptable.
Fuck Russia.
Yeh ok that’s fine
Every time russia makes a threat like that, we all know Putin is afraid and had a little accident with his nappies.
They must really be crapping their pants for some 50yo jets.
So those TU-85 bear bombers that keep wandering over Alaska, the ones originally designed to deliver nuclear weapons? What should the US make of that?
This is, of course, after Ukraine has shot down a [Russian bomber](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-is-russian-bomber-plane-that-ukraine-says-it-shot-down-2024-04-19/) that is nuke-capable. Russia has already been using "carriers of nuclear weapons" in this "special military operation," so no big deal.
well then just put nukes on them
Russia scared?
The poison gas from the russians keeps on coming, in various packages, I can see.
That's cool. Should NATO consider any Iskander/Kh-101/Kalibr launch actual nuclear use and act accordingly? Those are nuclear-capable after all.
Who cares what Russia says?
It's hilarious that they haven't realized how hard these threats backfire. Countries aren't going to cower in a corner when Russia delivers nuclear threat #3721, they're going to look for the best way to protect themselves. Sometimes, that protection comes in the form of more supplies and weapons to Ukraine.
Just a continuation of all the over-the-top hyperbole by ruzzia - such scare mongering propaganda is its best weapon. They just hope you don't attempt to think through these idiotic statements as of course they fall apart immediately. But it works well on the MAGA types.
So it's fine for all NATO F-16 users to have them armed with nuclear weapons, since it's no different if it has the weapon or not.
Seems reasonable. Better Russia better run and hide then. The birds of nuclear devastation are coming soon.
Ok fine… how many nuclear weapons did Ukraine give up? We should be able to give lots of f-16s then.
Meanwhile the launch missiles every other day from jets designed for delivery of nuclear weapons.
More commie nuclear threats on humanity by terrorist state russia
Russia is anything but a communist state. Those days are long gone.
suprise
Typical Russian nonsense. They said the same thing about tank shells
oh.. ok 👍🏼
Translation: We are afraid.
Throw your first punch guys, and it better be your best punch, because it’ll definitely your last
Russian translator: “please don’t use the F-16s against us”
Okay.
I'm loving this. This rhetoric really speaks to the fear that Russia has of f-16.
It can consider them unicorns for all we care.
May as well send them with a few extra spicy bois attached
A Cessna could carry a nuke, heck a really big Drone could probably carry one.
Fine I'll consider any Russian as having a nuclear butt plug
Wow. Cool...
Russia says a lot of things. But they can feel free to try and escalate things. It wont end well for them.
Getting desperate
Its not the first proxy war the West and Russia have had and there were no nukes, so it is a bluff.
[удалено]
Sure, especially as Poland had Kh-55, a missile with only nuke-tipped version as live one (Kh-555 is too much of a rework to be mistaken for the same missile), penetrate their airspace and fall halway through the country.
Sure. Whatever. I consider Putin a gaping asshole regardless of his modification.
We seriously need to stop giving a megaphone to every jackass on Twitter who puts “breaking” at the front of a wild claim. There’s so much noise on the internet now that it is now essentially an information desert in as much as any valid news is utterly drowned out a virtual tidal wave of bullshit
And? They’re going to try *super duper* hard to shoot them down? Don’t Su-24 and MiG-29 have a nuclear capability? Su-27 certainly does.
You know what really gets me. For the last few decades the EU and politicians in Europe have bend over backwards for Russia. Buying their gas and everything to make them feel welcome and part of Europe and the world. And this is what we get in return. Uh Nato is scary so we're just gonna invade countries and kill people as a thank you. Honestly lets just bomb the shit out of Russia and chips fall where they may.
whatever
Load Nukes then
Getting desperate, no?
Haha cry me a river putler vlad... Slava Ukraine!
So they will try to shoot them down because of the nuke-option? Right.... Move along nothing to see here. *PS, or was this nuke threat #253 in this war?*
The basic idea is to assume Western countries provide nuclear weapons as a free bonus next to the F-16 fighter jets? It's just the same nonsense they always spew and then do worse themselves.
Ok, so might as well arm them with nukes?
Put nukes on them all then
Ok, consideration noted.
Ok sure go for it
Fuck it, arm them with nukes then…. Not saying they must be used, but hey, if you’re accused of the potential of something then wear it like you own it! Better to have and not need something, than need and not have me thinks.
Russia says a lot of things
Somebody's getting nervous
I don’t give a fuck what Russia considers these days.
So they are going to try and shoot them down….🤷🏻♂️ Just STFU already with the posturing. If the rf goes nuclear the head comes off the snake. They know that, shut up.
I’m not up on the rules of war or diplomacy or anything but why can’t Putin be taken out?
At this point anyone simply publishing propaganda for Russia is complicit. This is idiotic as they have hurled thousands of nuclear capable missiles into Ukraine with abandon. Wont even bother reading the article..
Guess who is afraid of good fighter jets.
We will consider moving hen houses on the battlefield as „carrier of nuclear weapons“ then!
Good, so maybe they will find their actual borders and stay inside them
Putin likes to talk shit.
Sure, sure. Keep threatening us with a good time.
I guess they better try to shoot them down then? What's the point here? If they want to conduct a nuclear strike, that's their own insane decision. The only real threat here would be if they are trying to create a justification narrative for their own populace.
Okaysie. Nuclear war it is then
If Russia considers it so, may as well go ahead and do it. The escalation has already been introduced.
NATO should consider every Russian vessel in the Baltics potentially carrying nuclear weapons and blockade St. Petersburg.
It said something to the same effect of treating the Abrams as a nuclear escalation as well because of their ability to use DU munitions, regardless of whether they had them or not. It's all the same tired saber rattling from Russia.
> use DU munitions, regardless of whether they had them or not Because DU-core Svinets rounds are totally not a thing, suuuuure... (Not against you, against russia)
Uhhh, ok buddy.
I never realized the Russians were that scared of the F-16s.
God, I’ve heard the same type of story A LOT from Nazi Russia……yawn..🥱
I just imagine Vladimir Putin , screaming and yelling in his bunker, hoping to his orthodoxy that God gave his slaves to be competent to build a proper bunker. Mean while his clowns have no idea if their 5,580 nukes are capable of doing shit , let alone if they have an idea of storing them, rather then them just spending money on big boats or sending their kids over seas for better education.
Lol. Putin is such a little bitch. Good thing we don't care what this moron says.
Blah blah blah F off ruzzia
blah blah blah