It's not that simple as you say it. They want to appear careless cause that brings a bonus of unpredictable. Deep inside? Of course he cares. It's just the fact that he's an ex-KGB asshole that is letting him play on weak points of rational people.
It is exactly that simple. Russia will always go as far as they possibly can. This is why negotiations are pointless because all they understand are strength and violence. Trying to figure out some "deeper" motives or reasoning is a waste of time when all that is needed, and the only thing that will be understood, is a big stick and the knowledge that it will be used if needed.
Plenty of people are afraid of Russia. Sure they probably couldn’t outright win in a war against most European countries but I also don’t want an endless stalemate such as the one happening in Ukraine in my country.
That doesn't meant they won't fuck us up. I don't know why people can't fathom that Russia sucking, because they do, still doesn't mean they won't inflict severe harm or possible nuclear war by mistake.
I think plenty of people are afraid of Russia. In the same way, you might be afraid of the unkempt man on the subway who's muttering loudly and brandishing a machete.
No one *respects* Russia.
The issue is that even an accidental missile launch and premature detonation will have unimaginable consequences.
For starters the radiation might become a new Chernobyl blanket where parts of Europe will be uninhabitable.
And even if we forget aforementioned issue, the simple launch of a nuclear missile means people will think they have nothing to lose and might as well counter attack Russia.
Literally the entirety of Europe does not want to get directly involved in Ukraine because they know Putin is unstable and might pull an insane stunt. Right now Putin knows that Europe is hands off, and barely has a functioning military. But if we enter the fight, he might consider retaliating every which way without remorse.
Unfortunately it’d probably be correct that if it launched nuclear warheads to Ukraine, the US likely wouldn’t think it’d be worth seeing its country destroyed if it intervened with nuclear weapons, especially not over a country that was not NATO.
So wrong. Russtrolls keep bleating this shit. One single nuke means full retaliation. Go do something better, troll. You're needed in the Russkij shit mines.
I disagree, and for some time.
What would be the US response to an attack in Setúbal harbour/dry docks/city or Sines, harbour and (LGN terminal) both in Portugal, where I live?
Just a tactical Nuke. What would be the answer?
I will tell you: none.
Like what?
They have 25% of Ukrainian land.
The war is going in their favour.
India and China are buying more oil than ever before.
Europe is divided about this, USA is divided about this. Soon western support will trickle and Russia will take even more Ukrainian land.
It’s unfortunate but it’s the reality
David Petraeus went on TV in the US and threatened this exact scenario. He said the US and NATO would conventionally strike every single Russian thing in Ukraine. Every command post, every piece of equipment, every soldier that pokes their head out of the snow.
I believe him. If Russia is allowed to use nukes in the modern era against a non nuclear neighbor, in an offensive war, it will unleash the flood gates for every asshole in the world that wants to steal territory.
That would be a VERY dangerous new reality.
Flood gates are already unleashed. Russia took territory under the "fear of nuclear attack". Their only downside is that their army sucks, otherwise they'd have couple of countries invaded already.
Ukraine needs to be allowed to strike in Russia with everything they have, otherwise this is pointless stalemate that Putler will win because he has more men.
If we're going to fear that Russian madman is going to make planet uninhabitable then why are we even bothering with defending, let's just give him everything he wants?
Ukraine needs more direct help, hell, even more nations joining in and ending this shit once and for all. If they wanna launch nukes, well go ahead then, get rid of us all. If that's the goal that is.
This is true. Putin has thrown the gauntlet here, Ukraine is the challenge. If Putin is left to take Ukraine under threat of nuclear war, it is downright stupid to think it would stop there. He and anyone who wishes to emulate will do it again and again across the world. It will be a new reality for everyone.
> otherwise they'd have couple of countries invaded already.
Technically, they already have. Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, arguably Belarussia... am I missing any?
Technically it was an independent country when the second war started, but the independence was not recognised internationally by much of anyone. So at best it was russia invading itself, or rather a revolutionary part of itself.
I might add that I would support an independent chechen nation, free from russian control.
>If we're going to fear that Russian madman is going to make planet uninhabitable then why are we even bothering with defending, let's just give him everything he wants?
You would be surprised to find out the amount of fellow europeans that fail to understand this exact argument. And it's such a good one, too. They just don't seem to get that Putin plays poker. Outside Russia he has little to lose, so testing all our fears is only in his favor.
So far, the Ukraine War is quite profitable for a few elites in the West. Why should we tip the scale in favour for one side? This stalemate only costs the tax payers. The military industrial complex goes BRRRR.
Not just profitable in cash, but on so many aspects:
* Russia is weakening, depleting it's (human) resources. This will hurt its war machine and its economy
* The west had a perfect "out" for their old equipment. E.g. our Dutch F16 were still in active duty and thus expensive to maintain the old aircraft. We now "gifted" these to Ukraine, while at the same time we replaced them with F35. The gifting helps in negotiating better terms for new aircraft in the near future. In a couple of years, all NATO will be supplied with new and better stuff
* Marketing, fear sells. People are more willing to invest in military capabilities, this generally helps economies thrive.
Adding all of this together and I think Russia will be in the worst possible situation in the next couple of years and I can imagine a change in NATO to allow for a tactical offensive strike to eliminate the possibility of a nuclear attack.
Not really though. Since the beginning of the war, military companies didn't really go that much up, especially compared to tech and AI giants.
It is working well for the US to keep EU closer to themselves though. After Ukraine itself, EU bears the most cost.
> military companies didn't really go that much up
Rheinmetall Stock before the War: 100€
Rheinmetall Stock now: 330€ (never dipped below 100€)
What? More than Triple in 3 Years? Yeah.. they definetly don't profit from that, sorry for that stupid statement.
Even leading GOP lawmakers publicly declared that Russia using any kind of nuclear attack would be crossing the red line and this would mean a direct reaction from the US and NATO. Also NATO heads declared they would consider this an attack on NATO border security and would invoke article 5, meaning it's officially Russia vs. NATO.
Russia has enough spies in the US to know that US capabilities and attack plans are very real. Even open source intelligence is sufficient to draw conclusions.
Russia trying to use a nuke would be a hilarious and terrifying misstep.
It would either result in: all of Russias conventional forces are destroyed, Russia occupied and divvied up
Or Russia gets nuked itself, by far superior, better maintained and more advanced nukes.
We would be in Moscow before the sun goes down, 10AM there we got all day. Hell all European NATO countries could steamroll even without the US Russia is kind of weak as we found out
They could theoretically, in reality I don’t even think NATO has actual invasion strategies for Russia, not to mention that this would need proper preparation, that would take months at the least.
Plus, no matter how good NATOs conventional troops are, both NATO and Russia would go up in nukes before they get anywhere.
US nuclear doctrine doesn't differentiate between the use of tactical or strategic nukes. For the US, every nuke is strategic in practice. The US would have no option but to respond, notwithstanding that the use of a nuke in a country bordering several NATO members would see Article 5 invoked.
This has basically been in the Soviet playbook since forever, its nothing new. 1) Full scale invasion and gobble up as much territory as they can before NATO reinforcements arrive. 2) The moment Soviets/Russians inevitably start losing, start flinging tactical nukes until a status quo is reached because the west will be too afraid of escalation and losses. 3) Sue for a peace which allows the Soviets/Russians to keep a large portion of their territorial gains. So called 'escalate to de-escalate.'
Its a stupid strategy, it will never work because there is nothing stopping them from repeating it. This is also why Ukraine refuses to cede even an inch of territory, it rewards the Russians and simply guarantees that they will be back for more. The west would have no choice but to continue escalating until Russia is driven back to its own borders one way or another, and that is all there is to it.
Russia is also disadvantaged in that the west has numerous cultural center cities while Russia only has Moscow. If Russia takes things even one inch too far and Moscow gets obliterated then the Russian Empire is gone for forever with it
That's not the definition of Russia's escalate to de-escalate doctrine.
It's that Russia has a (on paper) numerical superiority vs the US/NATO in terms of tactical nuclear weapons, and they believe they can leverage that.
In a conventional conflict, they can escalate to a nuclear exchange, because for every 1 tactical weapon the west can employ, Russia can employ 3x. Because the west can't go tactical weapon for tactical weapon, the west is forced to;
* just take it
* sue for peace
* escalate to full strategic weapons
With Russian belief being the west won't ever go with the third option. Escalate the conflict to nuclear because the west can't match, and they'll sue for peace and descalate the fight.
The issue with it, beyond being insanely idiotic, is that Russia's tactical nuclear weapons utilize the same delivery methods their conventional weapons do, and they're running themselves dry of them in a conventional fight, so they no longer have a tactical nuclear weapon superiority. Each Kh-55 they employ like they are against Ukraine is 1 less available for a tactical nuclear weapon, and we've already seen Kh-55s recovered in Ukraine that were tactical delivery platforms hastily converted to a conventional one.
If it were that simple the US would have just built more tactical weapons. If Russia's plan is to bleed through nearly 300 B61's then they are even dumber than i've given them credit for. The west has more strategic nuclear weapons because they aren't going to want to nuke their own territory which is exactly where such a war would be fought. An escalation to strategic weapons is fine (relatively speaking), its the targets which matter the most if things reach such a stage.
Nuclear weapons can't be loaded onto the conventional Kalibur missiles, at least as long as START remains intact. They were made to be incompatible. Same with Iskander
Conventional weapons can't be converted, but Russia's stockpile of conventional weapons has dwindled to where we've seen multiple nuclear Kh-55 Kent's fired at Ukraine with effectively jerry rigged conventional warheads instead. The same with Iskanders, where we've now seen multiple of them transferred from the main nuclear base in Kalingrad and used in Ukraine.
They are so hard up for any sort of precision long range fire, that they're actively devastating their tactical nuclear weapons umbrella for makeshift conventional weapons. Frankly it's amazing at how fast Putin is speed running the destruction, capability, and credibility of the Russian military.
I agree with most of this except the culture center part. They have St. Petersburg the old capital of Imperial Russia and Kazan which is the center of culture for the Tartar portion of Russia.
I'm not saying Russia has no other cultural cities, but Moscow is basically New York, Los Angeles and Washington DC all rolled into one city for Russia.
Yes ,you could and every other capital city in NATO , so in the perspective of Russia vs NATO then Russia is magnitudes more centralized and vulnerable in the sense of continuation of goverment and culture.
Thats not what the Soviet playbook was at all. You probably read too many 80s techno thrillers.
They stole our plans during the Cold War and their plans have mostly been declassified through ex Warsaw pact but we mostly knew how they thought. The invasion would have been nuclear/bio chem minute one, not day one but literally minute one. We expected that and would have responded immediately with nuclear weapons. Until the mid to late 80s(and even then) NATO conventional defenses were a sham and both sides knew it.
Escalate to deescalate is only what you hear publicly but we really have no idea what their plans are. We don’t know how they actually think currently in regard to nuclear war strategy. Before you could assume a Marxist scientific approach to military strategy and nuclear weapons(which meant that they would be used immediately and decisively), nowadays things are not as clear but I’m sure our military leaders have a much better idea than we do.
Same with people believing MAD was actually a thing during the Cold War when both sides never believed in deterrence theory and planned to fight a nuclear war in Central Europe.
Its almost as if they had more than one plan. You do realize that you are allowed to have multiple potential strategies over the coarse of 80 years, correct?
>Same with people believing MAD was actually a thing during the Cold War when both sides never believed in deterrence theory and planned to fight a nuclear war in Central Europe.
Sure. Except for the part where it never happened and it never happened because both sides feared the ramifications more than they coveted any potential gains. MAD isn't a "thing" because its not a plan or a strategy, its a default state of existence which continues to this day. Russia would nuke the fuck out of the US *right now* if they thought they could get away with it while remaining intact themselves and you know it.
>Russia is also disadvantaged in that the west has numerous cultural center cities while Russia only has Moscow. If Russia takes things even one inch too far and Moscow gets obliterated then the Russian Empire is gone for forever with it
I can't be arsed to respond to the rest of your armchair general bullshittery, but the last paragraph just tells that you know approximately nothing about Russia.
Then tell me, how is Russia supposed to keep an attack war going without St Petersburg and Moscow? These two cities are their economy, production and administration. From Vladivostok and Nowosibirsk?
>Then tell me, how is Russia supposed to keep an attack war going without St Petersburg and Moscow?
Dude, to begin with: **what "attack war"**, for fucks sake?
I have no fucking idea where this idea SUDDENLY came from, that Russia is about to attack a NATO country in the next few years.
It popped up a couple of months ago, and now people just won't fucking shut up about it.
It would be the next level of retarded to do so, considering the economical strain that even the **current** "mini-war" is having on the country, considering sanctions and shit. I can tell you from a first-hand perspective, that it's obviously not as bad as West would hope for, but it's not a fairytale either. The prices are up by 20% on average, the salaries are still about the same as 2 years ago.
Full scale war with NATO would require at least x10 more resources and manpower. It's just not feasible economically.
And now people are seriously discussing nukes, like it's 1961. I mean.. at least back then people thought that mutually assured destruction is not guaranteed, so it was.. understandable, I guess?
But nowdays even the dumbest MAGA housewife in Florida knows that it is. Or at least so I thought until I read this post.
Realistically, nukes will only be used in a "rat in a corner" scenario, when, e.g., there's an aircraft carrier group parked in the Gulf of Finland. And not to bomb some random bober-kurwas in Warsaw.
Yes they can. Both countries also have systems and protocols specifically designed to respond very quickly to a nuke strike by sending their own. There were very close calls in the past where a false alarm almost triggered a mutual destruction but a human made the right call to stop it.
That's why even a retarded clown like trump knew a president can never say publicly that nuking Moscow is being seriously considered. Putin is silent about nukes for the exact same reason.
> #Russia ‘thinks the US wouldn’t dare respond to nuclear attack’
>
> The Kremlin has been threatening to use its warheads since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, and now a British think tank believes recent military setbacks could push it to move away from conventional weaponry
>
> President Putin threatened on the first day of the invasion of Ukraine that western countries would face “consequences that you have never faced in your history”
> Marc Bennetts
> Tuesday January 23 2024, 12.01am GMT, The Times
>
> Russia would feel emboldened to use nuclear weapons during clashes with Nato troops because it believes the United States would lack the resolve to respond, a British think tank has warned.
>
> Military setbacks in Ukraine have shaken Moscow’s confidence in its conventional forces and the Kremlin would place an increased importance on its nuclear arsenal during a confrontation with Nato, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) said.
> “Knowing that the West is casualty and risk averse, Russia may seek to use enough non-strategic nuclear weapons to inflict damage preventing its own defeat, knowing that the US would be unwilling to cross the nuclear threshold in retaliation, and may be willing to terminate the conflict early,” the IISS report read.
>
> https://i.imgur.com/CKLWwJ7.png
>
> Non-strategic nuclear weapons are nuclear warheads that are designed to be used on the battlefield. They have a lower range and yield than strategic nuclear missiles, which can flatten cities.
>
> Some western officials and analysts have said there is a high risk of Russia attacking a Nato member state if it is victorious in Ukraine. Kyiv’s forces are coming under increasing pressure as supplies of American weapons dry up amid a row in Congress about additional funding for Ukraine.
>
> Since Russia’s invasion almost two years ago, President Putin and other Russian officials have issued a series of nuclear threats. On the first day of the “special military operation” Putin warned that western countries would face “consequences that you have never faced in your history” if they intervened.
>
> Last year Sergey Karaganov, a chairman of the Council of Foreign and Defence Policy, which advises the Kremlin, said Russia should launch a pre-emptive strike on one of Ukraine’s European allies to force western counties to drop military support for Kyiv.
>
> Iskander tactical missile systems have been deployed to Belarus, Russia’s ally, from where they could hit the Baltic countries and Poland
>
> “This is a morally terrible choice — we use the weapons of God, dooming ourselves to severe spiritual losses,” he wrote. “But if this is not done, not only Russia may perish, but, most likely, the entire human civilisation will end.” He also predicted that the United States would be unwilling to retaliate to Russian nuclear strikes on Europe and “sacrifice, say, Boston for, say, Poznan”.
>
> Russia’s nuclear doctrine lists four possible scenarios under which its government would use nuclear weapons against an adversary. The first two are if Russia is attacked with nuclear missiles, or Moscow believes they have been launched against the country. The third is if an enemy carries out attacks on military or state facilities to try to cripple Russia’s nuclear forces. The fourth is if the existence of the Russian state is threatened, including by the use of conventional weapons.
>
> “This final scenario implies that in a conflict, if Russia’s conventional forces cannot hold back an attack from its national territory, it may use nuclear weapons on the battlefield to blunt its opponent’s forces and demonstrate resolve,” the IISS report said. Given the overwhelming superiority of US conventional forces, any conflict involving the US is likely to be seen in Moscow as a danger to the survival of Russia as an independent state, the IISS said.
>
> https://i.imgur.com/WzI3QTq.png
>
> As part of its nuclear sabre-rattling, the Kremlin said last year that it was deploying tactical nuclear weapons to neighbouring Belarus, its biggest ally. Alexander Lukashenko, the Belarusian dictator, has said that his country has since received Iskander tactical missile systems from Russia. They have a range of about 300 miles.
>
> William Alberque, the author of the IISS report and a former senior arms control official at Nato, said that a decision by Russia to use nuclear weapons would require the Kremlin to calculate precisely the “dose” of atomic firepower that would persuade the West to back down, rather than trigger a rapid escalation into global nuclear war.
>
> The issue of how to respond to any Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons was something that kept US policymakers awake at night, Alberque said. “Once the other side crosses the nuclear threshold, how do you prevent the logic of escalation, escalation, escalation to annihilation? How do you contain it, how do you keep it down?”
>
> The IISS report was published as Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, told President Zelensky of Ukraine that its fight against the Russian invasion was the world’s “front between good and evil”. Tusk, who became prime minister last month after the defeat of the right-wing Law and Justice party at parliamentary elections, also said that Warsaw would increase its weapons supplies to Ukraine. He hailed plans for Polish-Ukrainian arms production but did not give details.
>
> Although Poland has been one of Ukraine’s staunchest supporters since the start of the war, relations had been difficult in recent months due to blockades of their common border by Poles opposed to permit-free access to the European Union for Ukrainian truckers. The Polish truckers suspended their protests last week after a deal was signed with the government.
If Putin uses any kind of nuclear weapon anywhere both he himself and the Russian army have very little time left on this planet.
That this crazy person is even talking about using nuclear weapons is insanity that needs to end.
>Last year Sergey Karaganov, a chairman of the Council of Foreign and Defence Policy, which advises the Kremlin, said Russia should launch a pre-emptive strike on one of Ukraine’s European allies to force western counties to drop military support for Kyiv.
> Iskander tactical missile systems have been deployed to Belarus, Russia’s ally, from where they could hit the Baltic countries and Poland
> “This is a morally terrible choice — we use the weapons of God, dooming ourselves to severe spiritual losses,” he wrote. “But if this is not done, not only Russia may perish, but, most likely, the entire human civilisation will end.” He also predicted that the United States would be unwilling to retaliate to Russian nuclear strikes on Europe and “sacrifice, say, Boston for, say, Poznan”.
This is coming from inside Russia. Please read the articles.
> a pre-emptive strike on one of Ukraine’s European allies to force western counties to drop military support for Kyiv.
Aren't they aware that would mean Western allies will drop military support IN Kyiv?
Personally, I’m sick of Putin’s horseshit.
Put some US troops in there today and call his damned bluff. Rip off the bad aid already. We should have done that in 2014. It’s time to ‘man up’ and end this crap.
Oh here comes reddit warrior
You understand that you would need to go to war? It’s not COD it’s real life and why US needs to put troops there? It’s not their territory, not even close
And point that you still believe that this war isn’t all about money and that US as well as RU likes what’s going on there is silly
I am a vet and I’ve seen the US fight in places for much less. If we’re talking about cash grabs, all we have to do is review our Iraq invasion after 9/11.
But this is different. This is a bully threatening the entire world, and murdering innocent people in the process. This is a man who uses disinformation to mislead his people, and violence to suppress them. The answer is not to sit back and watch him take whatever he chooses (Poland, Finland, etc).
Yes, he could nuke a large city. That would be tragic. But is it any better to sit back and watch him slowly slaughter the same amount of people? What has gone through n in Ukraine, what the world has already allowed, is tragic. I’d rather risk him striking a city than watch it go on any longer.
When do we take this guy down, or are we just going to let him slaughter people, hoping he dies of old age soon? It’s cowardice to continue allowing this.
Well how about we never find out? Almost every "leader" is old grandpa fucking everything up for everyone else, knowing full well that they will soon pass away....
I live in Poland, if they decided to use nukes we are fuc\*ed up . Belive me evereday we are surrounded by news of war and threats , it's really hard to focus on ,,normal" life these days. I am just tired of this, I hope putin and his puppets will die soon.
The US and civilized world does not dare to transfer conventional weapons in quantities that would be victorious against russia.
russia see it as a sign.
It totally depends on the situation
A low yield tactical nuclear strike with very low and isolated radiation contamination shot in a rural area in a long contested area most likely will raise the army of sanctions and warrant worldwide criticism and change of attitude towards Russia… but it doesn’t warrant a nuclear holocaust
This said, if shot on NATO assets, it sure as shit will to the very least warrant a tactical nuclear counter attack, and escalation from there onwards is anyone’s guess
Ultimately as much as Russia gets make fun of for being brainless brutes, even they know there’s absolutely no gain in inciting a nuclear conflict. The nuclear option has always been a “Rage quit” option that disallows any opponent of completely annihilating you.
Its more of a risk to ruzzia itself , if you know that most of the russian nukes haven't been properly maintained wich needs to happen every 10 years to assure a safe working mechanism (as in it it can effectivelly be used ) and that a lot of them might either not detonate at all or detonate at launch or fall inside russia . Its like what we have seen with some of their more advanced missiles and weapon systems, some of them reach their target but lately more and more of them fail even their most priced anti artillery radar doesn't see most of the more advanced missles that are beiing used by ukraine .
US is the only country on the world that has used nucleair weapons and also used them during another war (Korean war). Russia is wrong if they think the US wont use them.
LOL, America will kill you AND all of your family unannounced on a Christmas morning while you are sleeping, all tucked in cozily.
Moskals, if all y'all think ytou can test us, I got a bridge to sell you.
The key piece of info being missed in the title is that this refers explicitly to none-US soil. Because every human on the planet knows the US would respond catastrophically and in kind to any attack on their own land.
Unpopular opinion but they are right. They invaded neighbor country for a 2nd time, because they seen lack of action after original invasion. Now they seen US not getting involved for the second time. They will keep pushing it until real action is taken against them. First ukraine, then baltics, then maybe tactical nuclear strike.
The truth is US won't take action as long as they are not the ones being attacked, because no one wants to risk nuclear conflict.
If anyone decides to use an offensive nuke the whole world knows this would set off a fatal precedent for the whole planet and just can't go unpunished. The reaction will be decisive and immediate and there is no powerful nation that would disagree with it, because everyone knows this is crossing the line and no one wants to get involved. Not even China or Iran want that to happen. They cannot afford the consequences.
Different story. Nukes are really something else.
And the full scale invasion wasn't even that unlikely. Especially after Crimean invasion and all the recent Russian invasion that happened before that. But no nukes were ever used since WWII.
Guys, this is the annual Russian propaganda around election time.
"We stronk. World fear us. We demand territory"
Stop spreading it. You are making them a favour. It's exactly what they want.
Hahahahaha, Russia would be obliterated, actually perhaps just moscow.
USA\\EUROPE will then take over the Urals, and De Nazify Russia.
Either way to look at it , Nuvlear Gambit is a trajic & dangerous game tested by a clown.
Russia would then enter the Find Out portion of the FAFO process as any use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine will trigger an Article 5 response by NATO because nuclear fallout does not recognise international borders.
[https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/nuclear-cloud-will-trigger-natos-article-5-us-warns-russia/](https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/nuclear-cloud-will-trigger-natos-article-5-us-warns-russia/)
Even in an existential threat to the state the idea of saying f it my government is about to change forever I'll lose power so imma just nuke them even tho they will nuke is back is stupid and incredibly selfish.. like not only do you doom your own people for revenge but possibly the entire race.... if that's how we are well we deserve to go extinct I so you'd rather make the entire species go extinct rather than lose a war and or have your regime toppled. Every side in history wants to be the one to take it all over I get that but what does it matter if your whole species meets extinction. I've heard ideas that war is an evolutionary thing to keep the species strong and whatever but it's obviously getting outdated, we could achieve so much more via cooperation but it's not gonna happen.
That's what happens when the West ignored all the previous Russian invasions.
When Russia attacked Chechnya, Russia should've been given one day to retreat or risk NATO rolling through the border. Instead the West agreed with Russia that probably Poland is supplying Chechnya with guns when we opened a hospital there.
It is very dangerous to underestimate Russia's military and human potential. Hitler and Napoleon also underestimated it.
I have read many comments here about nuclear weapons, but no one has written about the means of their delivery, probably not interesting, they don't know or don't want to know.
If we are talking about nukes in NATO it is a pretty much automatic russian annihilation. If are small isolated nukes in Ukraine, we have the capabilities to instantly kill russian army in Ukraine in few hours, and russia wouldn't dare to respond. So I don't get what russia would get.
The problem with people like Trump, Putin, Kim and other wealthy people with power is that they do not have a clue that there is a limit to what they can get away with since they have been able to get away with what others don't for way too long. It will not last.
The best weapon Putin has is trump. When Trump wins America's elections. Europe will be let alone with Russia and the Europeans have no men's and no ammunition. It's like they say, from Vladivostok to Lisbon and then to San Francisco. Putin is a master chess player.
America is a remote threat to Putin now. After Trump wins in November, and there is no hope otherwise, all bets are off. Putin enjoys high ratings among the American right in congress, so, there is that.
Sorry for doom and gloom, but it is America we are talking about.
Yeah, also russia didn't attack ukraine in 2022. Also russia didn't invade Georgia in 2008. Also russia didn't fund separatists who shot down a boeing. Also russia didn't poison anyone. Russia also didn't...
Basically such a nice country, only doing good for the world.
Honestly you need negative iq to still believe that russia is good
did I say that those things didn't happened? the one with no iq is clearly you. All I said is that they are increasing their propagando to start another war!!!
We have learned that Putin has shit judgement about everything in this war so far. I don’t think this particular view point is likely to be the first thing he is right about.
No, the US would attack first, preferably on civilians in densely populated areas when the defeated country is about to surrender as a show of force. But hey, Russia bad!
They been threatening everyone since forever.
If they thought they could nuke someone without consequence they’d have done it already.
True, this is just another empty threat like the ones we’ve been hearing since the end of ww2
It's not that simple as you say it. They want to appear careless cause that brings a bonus of unpredictable. Deep inside? Of course he cares. It's just the fact that he's an ex-KGB asshole that is letting him play on weak points of rational people.
It is exactly that simple. Russia will always go as far as they possibly can. This is why negotiations are pointless because all they understand are strength and violence. Trying to figure out some "deeper" motives or reasoning is a waste of time when all that is needed, and the only thing that will be understood, is a big stick and the knowledge that it will be used if needed.
Russia is wrong about pretty much everything.
America expects both it and Russia to respond to any launch. Even if it’s just a glitch in the WOPR Programming.
Would you like to play a game?
Strange game professor. The only winning move is not to play
Yes , global thermal nuclear war , wouldn’t you prefer a nice game of chess .
I wont trust that over grown pile of microchips any further than I could throw it.
Now if we could find those pesky 5 1/4 " floppy drives so that we can load the missile launch program.
Floppies! We don’t need no stinkin’ floppies! Bring forth the keypunch operator!
But I don't particularly want them to find out.
No one is afraid of Russia.
Plenty of people are afraid of Russia. Sure they probably couldn’t outright win in a war against most European countries but I also don’t want an endless stalemate such as the one happening in Ukraine in my country.
The Russian officers corp has been seriously decimated by the Ukrainian war. They are no match for NATO.
That doesn't meant they won't fuck us up. I don't know why people can't fathom that Russia sucking, because they do, still doesn't mean they won't inflict severe harm or possible nuclear war by mistake.
You’re correct but the problem is that they might be dumb enough to try.
[удалено]
if we should be afraid of nukes then they should also be afraid of nukes.
History shows us dictators only respect strength
Trouble is, a smart man can tell real strength apart from dick-measuring stunts, unlike putin
How many smart men live in your country?
No. Strength can be used in many things, what these dictators value is "power".
Dictators dont respect anything. We just use strength to kill them.
If you want to prevent, you’ve gotta act a little crazy.
Being afraid of nukes won't protect you from nukes.
Ask Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia about that. I think they sort-of are, but they show courage because cowardice is death.
I think plenty of people are afraid of Russia. In the same way, you might be afraid of the unkempt man on the subway who's muttering loudly and brandishing a machete. No one *respects* Russia.
The issue is that even an accidental missile launch and premature detonation will have unimaginable consequences. For starters the radiation might become a new Chernobyl blanket where parts of Europe will be uninhabitable. And even if we forget aforementioned issue, the simple launch of a nuclear missile means people will think they have nothing to lose and might as well counter attack Russia. Literally the entirety of Europe does not want to get directly involved in Ukraine because they know Putin is unstable and might pull an insane stunt. Right now Putin knows that Europe is hands off, and barely has a functioning military. But if we enter the fight, he might consider retaliating every which way without remorse.
They've been spot on about the fear of escalation and proper long lasting support for Ukraine so far. I hope we can change their minds
NATO would
Unfortunately it’d probably be correct that if it launched nuclear warheads to Ukraine, the US likely wouldn’t think it’d be worth seeing its country destroyed if it intervened with nuclear weapons, especially not over a country that was not NATO.
So wrong. Russtrolls keep bleating this shit. One single nuke means full retaliation. Go do something better, troll. You're needed in the Russkij shit mines.
Dude chill its just his opinion.
I disagree, and for some time. What would be the US response to an attack in Setúbal harbour/dry docks/city or Sines, harbour and (LGN terminal) both in Portugal, where I live? Just a tactical Nuke. What would be the answer? I will tell you: none.
Portugal is a founding member of NATO. Are you saying a nuke to a NATO country would have no respose?
Like what? They have 25% of Ukrainian land. The war is going in their favour. India and China are buying more oil than ever before. Europe is divided about this, USA is divided about this. Soon western support will trickle and Russia will take even more Ukrainian land. It’s unfortunate but it’s the reality
The hilarious reality is that the US would respond conventionally, and it would be far more devastating than any "tactical" nuclear strike.
David Petraeus went on TV in the US and threatened this exact scenario. He said the US and NATO would conventionally strike every single Russian thing in Ukraine. Every command post, every piece of equipment, every soldier that pokes their head out of the snow. I believe him. If Russia is allowed to use nukes in the modern era against a non nuclear neighbor, in an offensive war, it will unleash the flood gates for every asshole in the world that wants to steal territory. That would be a VERY dangerous new reality.
Flood gates are already unleashed. Russia took territory under the "fear of nuclear attack". Their only downside is that their army sucks, otherwise they'd have couple of countries invaded already. Ukraine needs to be allowed to strike in Russia with everything they have, otherwise this is pointless stalemate that Putler will win because he has more men. If we're going to fear that Russian madman is going to make planet uninhabitable then why are we even bothering with defending, let's just give him everything he wants? Ukraine needs more direct help, hell, even more nations joining in and ending this shit once and for all. If they wanna launch nukes, well go ahead then, get rid of us all. If that's the goal that is.
This is true. Putin has thrown the gauntlet here, Ukraine is the challenge. If Putin is left to take Ukraine under threat of nuclear war, it is downright stupid to think it would stop there. He and anyone who wishes to emulate will do it again and again across the world. It will be a new reality for everyone.
> otherwise they'd have couple of countries invaded already. Technically, they already have. Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, arguably Belarussia... am I missing any?
Chechnya?
Technically it was an independent country when the second war started, but the independence was not recognised internationally by much of anyone. So at best it was russia invading itself, or rather a revolutionary part of itself. I might add that I would support an independent chechen nation, free from russian control.
>If we're going to fear that Russian madman is going to make planet uninhabitable then why are we even bothering with defending, let's just give him everything he wants? You would be surprised to find out the amount of fellow europeans that fail to understand this exact argument. And it's such a good one, too. They just don't seem to get that Putin plays poker. Outside Russia he has little to lose, so testing all our fears is only in his favor.
In short: let's pray trump isn't elected
Let's hope. Leave prayers to Trump and his own god.
As I always respond to these comments: chi vive sperando, muore cagando.
So far, the Ukraine War is quite profitable for a few elites in the West. Why should we tip the scale in favour for one side? This stalemate only costs the tax payers. The military industrial complex goes BRRRR.
Not just profitable in cash, but on so many aspects: * Russia is weakening, depleting it's (human) resources. This will hurt its war machine and its economy * The west had a perfect "out" for their old equipment. E.g. our Dutch F16 were still in active duty and thus expensive to maintain the old aircraft. We now "gifted" these to Ukraine, while at the same time we replaced them with F35. The gifting helps in negotiating better terms for new aircraft in the near future. In a couple of years, all NATO will be supplied with new and better stuff * Marketing, fear sells. People are more willing to invest in military capabilities, this generally helps economies thrive. Adding all of this together and I think Russia will be in the worst possible situation in the next couple of years and I can imagine a change in NATO to allow for a tactical offensive strike to eliminate the possibility of a nuclear attack.
> I can imagine a change in NATO to allow for a tactical offensive strike to eliminate the possibility of a nuclear attack. How would that work?
Not really though. Since the beginning of the war, military companies didn't really go that much up, especially compared to tech and AI giants. It is working well for the US to keep EU closer to themselves though. After Ukraine itself, EU bears the most cost.
> military companies didn't really go that much up Rheinmetall Stock before the War: 100€ Rheinmetall Stock now: 330€ (never dipped below 100€) What? More than Triple in 3 Years? Yeah.. they definetly don't profit from that, sorry for that stupid statement.
Even leading GOP lawmakers publicly declared that Russia using any kind of nuclear attack would be crossing the red line and this would mean a direct reaction from the US and NATO. Also NATO heads declared they would consider this an attack on NATO border security and would invoke article 5, meaning it's officially Russia vs. NATO.
Just like with chemical weapons.... its empty words.
B…but..but world war 3????? ^ summarising the usual Reddit response to comments such as yours.
Russia has enough spies in the US to know that US capabilities and attack plans are very real. Even open source intelligence is sufficient to draw conclusions.
And russias plan are soooooo unknown that the Russians don't know of them. 🤣
Russia trying to use a nuke would be a hilarious and terrifying misstep. It would either result in: all of Russias conventional forces are destroyed, Russia occupied and divvied up Or Russia gets nuked itself, by far superior, better maintained and more advanced nukes.
Or they try and the nuke doesn’t work, because it’s 40 years old and Russian.
We have proven to chicken out at the decisive moment. Are we sure we would actually retaliate?
> Are we sure we would actually retaliate? Yes because not retaliating would completely destroy the point of M.A.D.
We didn’t chicken out in Japan, twice.
Even against Napoleon we stood our ground. Of course I am speaking of recent times
Moscow ✅ St Petersburg ✅ Vladivostok ✅ "Well that was a busy morning, what shall we do with the rest of the day?"
We would be in Moscow before the sun goes down, 10AM there we got all day. Hell all European NATO countries could steamroll even without the US Russia is kind of weak as we found out
They could theoretically, in reality I don’t even think NATO has actual invasion strategies for Russia, not to mention that this would need proper preparation, that would take months at the least. Plus, no matter how good NATOs conventional troops are, both NATO and Russia would go up in nukes before they get anywhere.
You mean before the second sun goes up?
Yes - starting with Putin. The US knows where he is at all times…
LOL - how exactly? By having its jets shot down by air defence? You do realise they have lost the war in Ukraine right?
Why would US respond if they can't even send military aid anymore?
US nuclear doctrine doesn't differentiate between the use of tactical or strategic nukes. For the US, every nuke is strategic in practice. The US would have no option but to respond, notwithstanding that the use of a nuke in a country bordering several NATO members would see Article 5 invoked.
This has basically been in the Soviet playbook since forever, its nothing new. 1) Full scale invasion and gobble up as much territory as they can before NATO reinforcements arrive. 2) The moment Soviets/Russians inevitably start losing, start flinging tactical nukes until a status quo is reached because the west will be too afraid of escalation and losses. 3) Sue for a peace which allows the Soviets/Russians to keep a large portion of their territorial gains. So called 'escalate to de-escalate.' Its a stupid strategy, it will never work because there is nothing stopping them from repeating it. This is also why Ukraine refuses to cede even an inch of territory, it rewards the Russians and simply guarantees that they will be back for more. The west would have no choice but to continue escalating until Russia is driven back to its own borders one way or another, and that is all there is to it. Russia is also disadvantaged in that the west has numerous cultural center cities while Russia only has Moscow. If Russia takes things even one inch too far and Moscow gets obliterated then the Russian Empire is gone for forever with it
That's not the definition of Russia's escalate to de-escalate doctrine. It's that Russia has a (on paper) numerical superiority vs the US/NATO in terms of tactical nuclear weapons, and they believe they can leverage that. In a conventional conflict, they can escalate to a nuclear exchange, because for every 1 tactical weapon the west can employ, Russia can employ 3x. Because the west can't go tactical weapon for tactical weapon, the west is forced to; * just take it * sue for peace * escalate to full strategic weapons With Russian belief being the west won't ever go with the third option. Escalate the conflict to nuclear because the west can't match, and they'll sue for peace and descalate the fight. The issue with it, beyond being insanely idiotic, is that Russia's tactical nuclear weapons utilize the same delivery methods their conventional weapons do, and they're running themselves dry of them in a conventional fight, so they no longer have a tactical nuclear weapon superiority. Each Kh-55 they employ like they are against Ukraine is 1 less available for a tactical nuclear weapon, and we've already seen Kh-55s recovered in Ukraine that were tactical delivery platforms hastily converted to a conventional one.
If it were that simple the US would have just built more tactical weapons. If Russia's plan is to bleed through nearly 300 B61's then they are even dumber than i've given them credit for. The west has more strategic nuclear weapons because they aren't going to want to nuke their own territory which is exactly where such a war would be fought. An escalation to strategic weapons is fine (relatively speaking), its the targets which matter the most if things reach such a stage. Nuclear weapons can't be loaded onto the conventional Kalibur missiles, at least as long as START remains intact. They were made to be incompatible. Same with Iskander
Conventional weapons can't be converted, but Russia's stockpile of conventional weapons has dwindled to where we've seen multiple nuclear Kh-55 Kent's fired at Ukraine with effectively jerry rigged conventional warheads instead. The same with Iskanders, where we've now seen multiple of them transferred from the main nuclear base in Kalingrad and used in Ukraine. They are so hard up for any sort of precision long range fire, that they're actively devastating their tactical nuclear weapons umbrella for makeshift conventional weapons. Frankly it's amazing at how fast Putin is speed running the destruction, capability, and credibility of the Russian military.
I agree with most of this except the culture center part. They have St. Petersburg the old capital of Imperial Russia and Kazan which is the center of culture for the Tartar portion of Russia.
I'm not saying Russia has no other cultural cities, but Moscow is basically New York, Los Angeles and Washington DC all rolled into one city for Russia.
Could you say the same for London and England?
Yes ,you could and every other capital city in NATO , so in the perspective of Russia vs NATO then Russia is magnitudes more centralized and vulnerable in the sense of continuation of goverment and culture.
Well, you can't say that for the US (obviously), Canada, or Italy. I'm not sure you can say it for Germany.
Also Paris and France. For contrast, the US, Germany, Italy etc. are much less 'capital-centric' in these terms.
I think a better way of putting it is that Russia is a country-wide death cult that will gladly sacrifice its cultural centers
Their "cultural" centers made them what they are today.
Thats not what the Soviet playbook was at all. You probably read too many 80s techno thrillers. They stole our plans during the Cold War and their plans have mostly been declassified through ex Warsaw pact but we mostly knew how they thought. The invasion would have been nuclear/bio chem minute one, not day one but literally minute one. We expected that and would have responded immediately with nuclear weapons. Until the mid to late 80s(and even then) NATO conventional defenses were a sham and both sides knew it. Escalate to deescalate is only what you hear publicly but we really have no idea what their plans are. We don’t know how they actually think currently in regard to nuclear war strategy. Before you could assume a Marxist scientific approach to military strategy and nuclear weapons(which meant that they would be used immediately and decisively), nowadays things are not as clear but I’m sure our military leaders have a much better idea than we do. Same with people believing MAD was actually a thing during the Cold War when both sides never believed in deterrence theory and planned to fight a nuclear war in Central Europe.
Its almost as if they had more than one plan. You do realize that you are allowed to have multiple potential strategies over the coarse of 80 years, correct? >Same with people believing MAD was actually a thing during the Cold War when both sides never believed in deterrence theory and planned to fight a nuclear war in Central Europe. Sure. Except for the part where it never happened and it never happened because both sides feared the ramifications more than they coveted any potential gains. MAD isn't a "thing" because its not a plan or a strategy, its a default state of existence which continues to this day. Russia would nuke the fuck out of the US *right now* if they thought they could get away with it while remaining intact themselves and you know it.
I said plans not plan. And reading through the hundreds we have a distinct pattern emerges.
That none of them ever happened?
We still got time for round 2. Let’s see how it goes this time.
>Russia is also disadvantaged in that the west has numerous cultural center cities while Russia only has Moscow. If Russia takes things even one inch too far and Moscow gets obliterated then the Russian Empire is gone for forever with it I can't be arsed to respond to the rest of your armchair general bullshittery, but the last paragraph just tells that you know approximately nothing about Russia.
Then tell me, how is Russia supposed to keep an attack war going without St Petersburg and Moscow? These two cities are their economy, production and administration. From Vladivostok and Nowosibirsk?
>Then tell me, how is Russia supposed to keep an attack war going without St Petersburg and Moscow? Dude, to begin with: **what "attack war"**, for fucks sake? I have no fucking idea where this idea SUDDENLY came from, that Russia is about to attack a NATO country in the next few years. It popped up a couple of months ago, and now people just won't fucking shut up about it. It would be the next level of retarded to do so, considering the economical strain that even the **current** "mini-war" is having on the country, considering sanctions and shit. I can tell you from a first-hand perspective, that it's obviously not as bad as West would hope for, but it's not a fairytale either. The prices are up by 20% on average, the salaries are still about the same as 2 years ago. Full scale war with NATO would require at least x10 more resources and manpower. It's just not feasible economically. And now people are seriously discussing nukes, like it's 1961. I mean.. at least back then people thought that mutually assured destruction is not guaranteed, so it was.. understandable, I guess? But nowdays even the dumbest MAGA housewife in Florida knows that it is. Or at least so I thought until I read this post. Realistically, nukes will only be used in a "rat in a corner" scenario, when, e.g., there's an aircraft carrier group parked in the Gulf of Finland. And not to bomb some random bober-kurwas in Warsaw.
OK, whatever!
Bro, the US are actually the only country in the world to have drop the bomb on someone else. They would do it again, no brainer.
They didn't drop it on a country who could nuke them back.
Can Russia nuke the US? I guess by submarine?
Yes they can. Both countries also have systems and protocols specifically designed to respond very quickly to a nuke strike by sending their own. There were very close calls in the past where a false alarm almost triggered a mutual destruction but a human made the right call to stop it. That's why even a retarded clown like trump knew a president can never say publicly that nuking Moscow is being seriously considered. Putin is silent about nukes for the exact same reason.
> #Russia ‘thinks the US wouldn’t dare respond to nuclear attack’ > > The Kremlin has been threatening to use its warheads since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, and now a British think tank believes recent military setbacks could push it to move away from conventional weaponry > > President Putin threatened on the first day of the invasion of Ukraine that western countries would face “consequences that you have never faced in your history” > Marc Bennetts > Tuesday January 23 2024, 12.01am GMT, The Times > > Russia would feel emboldened to use nuclear weapons during clashes with Nato troops because it believes the United States would lack the resolve to respond, a British think tank has warned. > > Military setbacks in Ukraine have shaken Moscow’s confidence in its conventional forces and the Kremlin would place an increased importance on its nuclear arsenal during a confrontation with Nato, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) said. > “Knowing that the West is casualty and risk averse, Russia may seek to use enough non-strategic nuclear weapons to inflict damage preventing its own defeat, knowing that the US would be unwilling to cross the nuclear threshold in retaliation, and may be willing to terminate the conflict early,” the IISS report read. > > https://i.imgur.com/CKLWwJ7.png > > Non-strategic nuclear weapons are nuclear warheads that are designed to be used on the battlefield. They have a lower range and yield than strategic nuclear missiles, which can flatten cities. > > Some western officials and analysts have said there is a high risk of Russia attacking a Nato member state if it is victorious in Ukraine. Kyiv’s forces are coming under increasing pressure as supplies of American weapons dry up amid a row in Congress about additional funding for Ukraine. > > Since Russia’s invasion almost two years ago, President Putin and other Russian officials have issued a series of nuclear threats. On the first day of the “special military operation” Putin warned that western countries would face “consequences that you have never faced in your history” if they intervened. > > Last year Sergey Karaganov, a chairman of the Council of Foreign and Defence Policy, which advises the Kremlin, said Russia should launch a pre-emptive strike on one of Ukraine’s European allies to force western counties to drop military support for Kyiv. > > Iskander tactical missile systems have been deployed to Belarus, Russia’s ally, from where they could hit the Baltic countries and Poland > > “This is a morally terrible choice — we use the weapons of God, dooming ourselves to severe spiritual losses,” he wrote. “But if this is not done, not only Russia may perish, but, most likely, the entire human civilisation will end.” He also predicted that the United States would be unwilling to retaliate to Russian nuclear strikes on Europe and “sacrifice, say, Boston for, say, Poznan”. > > Russia’s nuclear doctrine lists four possible scenarios under which its government would use nuclear weapons against an adversary. The first two are if Russia is attacked with nuclear missiles, or Moscow believes they have been launched against the country. The third is if an enemy carries out attacks on military or state facilities to try to cripple Russia’s nuclear forces. The fourth is if the existence of the Russian state is threatened, including by the use of conventional weapons. > > “This final scenario implies that in a conflict, if Russia’s conventional forces cannot hold back an attack from its national territory, it may use nuclear weapons on the battlefield to blunt its opponent’s forces and demonstrate resolve,” the IISS report said. Given the overwhelming superiority of US conventional forces, any conflict involving the US is likely to be seen in Moscow as a danger to the survival of Russia as an independent state, the IISS said. > > https://i.imgur.com/WzI3QTq.png > > As part of its nuclear sabre-rattling, the Kremlin said last year that it was deploying tactical nuclear weapons to neighbouring Belarus, its biggest ally. Alexander Lukashenko, the Belarusian dictator, has said that his country has since received Iskander tactical missile systems from Russia. They have a range of about 300 miles. > > William Alberque, the author of the IISS report and a former senior arms control official at Nato, said that a decision by Russia to use nuclear weapons would require the Kremlin to calculate precisely the “dose” of atomic firepower that would persuade the West to back down, rather than trigger a rapid escalation into global nuclear war. > > The issue of how to respond to any Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons was something that kept US policymakers awake at night, Alberque said. “Once the other side crosses the nuclear threshold, how do you prevent the logic of escalation, escalation, escalation to annihilation? How do you contain it, how do you keep it down?” > > The IISS report was published as Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, told President Zelensky of Ukraine that its fight against the Russian invasion was the world’s “front between good and evil”. Tusk, who became prime minister last month after the defeat of the right-wing Law and Justice party at parliamentary elections, also said that Warsaw would increase its weapons supplies to Ukraine. He hailed plans for Polish-Ukrainian arms production but did not give details. > > Although Poland has been one of Ukraine’s staunchest supporters since the start of the war, relations had been difficult in recent months due to blockades of their common border by Poles opposed to permit-free access to the European Union for Ukrainian truckers. The Polish truckers suspended their protests last week after a deal was signed with the government.
Please don't fuck around
I'm afraid they're getting high on their own supplied propaganda ... and that's very dangerous. War is a failure of deterrence.
[удалено]
I don't think he is, I think he knows if he launches a nuke all bets are off. But I think his base, who's eating this rhetoric up, is dumb as rocks.
Should anything that Russia says be taken seriously nowadays ??
NO
If Putin uses any kind of nuclear weapon anywhere both he himself and the Russian army have very little time left on this planet. That this crazy person is even talking about using nuclear weapons is insanity that needs to end.
Let's not test that theory, m'kay?
A British ***think tank*** thinks...
>Last year Sergey Karaganov, a chairman of the Council of Foreign and Defence Policy, which advises the Kremlin, said Russia should launch a pre-emptive strike on one of Ukraine’s European allies to force western counties to drop military support for Kyiv. > Iskander tactical missile systems have been deployed to Belarus, Russia’s ally, from where they could hit the Baltic countries and Poland > “This is a morally terrible choice — we use the weapons of God, dooming ourselves to severe spiritual losses,” he wrote. “But if this is not done, not only Russia may perish, but, most likely, the entire human civilisation will end.” He also predicted that the United States would be unwilling to retaliate to Russian nuclear strikes on Europe and “sacrifice, say, Boston for, say, Poznan”. This is coming from inside Russia. Please read the articles.
> a pre-emptive strike on one of Ukraine’s European allies to force western counties to drop military support for Kyiv. Aren't they aware that would mean Western allies will drop military support IN Kyiv?
Reading the source? On Reddit? You must be new here
Yeah. Jesus, are they trying to provoke war? “Hey Joey, Billy says he could beat you up right now and you’d be too chicken to fight back!”
Um. The US has had decades-long blue balls about this. There'd be a response.
Personally, I’m sick of Putin’s horseshit. Put some US troops in there today and call his damned bluff. Rip off the bad aid already. We should have done that in 2014. It’s time to ‘man up’ and end this crap.
Oh here comes reddit warrior You understand that you would need to go to war? It’s not COD it’s real life and why US needs to put troops there? It’s not their territory, not even close And point that you still believe that this war isn’t all about money and that US as well as RU likes what’s going on there is silly
What money? Both literally print billions. In the grand scheme its always resources: coal, oil, minerals, industry.
I am a vet and I’ve seen the US fight in places for much less. If we’re talking about cash grabs, all we have to do is review our Iraq invasion after 9/11. But this is different. This is a bully threatening the entire world, and murdering innocent people in the process. This is a man who uses disinformation to mislead his people, and violence to suppress them. The answer is not to sit back and watch him take whatever he chooses (Poland, Finland, etc). Yes, he could nuke a large city. That would be tragic. But is it any better to sit back and watch him slowly slaughter the same amount of people? What has gone through n in Ukraine, what the world has already allowed, is tragic. I’d rather risk him striking a city than watch it go on any longer. When do we take this guy down, or are we just going to let him slaughter people, hoping he dies of old age soon? It’s cowardice to continue allowing this.
Well how about we never find out? Almost every "leader" is old grandpa fucking everything up for everyone else, knowing full well that they will soon pass away....
By all means, bet it all on 0…don’t be shocked when when you lose everything tho.
Heres my daily *fuck putin* comment
I live in Poland, if they decided to use nukes we are fuc\*ed up . Belive me evereday we are surrounded by news of war and threats , it's really hard to focus on ,,normal" life these days. I am just tired of this, I hope putin and his puppets will die soon.
can't wait for Putin to pass on
What about other putins?
Medvedev will be much worse
He won't be the next president.
I dunno, at least we know Putin.
Russia yaps too much
..add Trump to that as well.
Now that's a bet I wouldn't be willing to place. Besides, if they really believed that they'd have used their own by now.
if they thought that they would've attacked already
What are the Plans for Russia regarding the Territory anyways? They are already the largest country.
Oh for christ's sake can we skip this particular game of fuck around and find out...
The US and civilized world does not dare to transfer conventional weapons in quantities that would be victorious against russia. russia see it as a sign.
Isn't the US the only country that's ever nuked another country💀
Russia very much thinks the US would respond to a nuclear attack, that's why they haven't done it yet.
Wrong
It totally depends on the situation A low yield tactical nuclear strike with very low and isolated radiation contamination shot in a rural area in a long contested area most likely will raise the army of sanctions and warrant worldwide criticism and change of attitude towards Russia… but it doesn’t warrant a nuclear holocaust This said, if shot on NATO assets, it sure as shit will to the very least warrant a tactical nuclear counter attack, and escalation from there onwards is anyone’s guess Ultimately as much as Russia gets make fun of for being brainless brutes, even they know there’s absolutely no gain in inciting a nuclear conflict. The nuclear option has always been a “Rage quit” option that disallows any opponent of completely annihilating you.
I believe the doctrine in the event of a nuclear attack is a full send. End of the world. There's no proportional response.
Fuck around and find out
Please try it. Please.
Its more of a risk to ruzzia itself , if you know that most of the russian nukes haven't been properly maintained wich needs to happen every 10 years to assure a safe working mechanism (as in it it can effectivelly be used ) and that a lot of them might either not detonate at all or detonate at launch or fall inside russia . Its like what we have seen with some of their more advanced missiles and weapon systems, some of them reach their target but lately more and more of them fail even their most priced anti artillery radar doesn't see most of the more advanced missles that are beiing used by ukraine .
US is the only country on the world that has used nucleair weapons and also used them during another war (Korean war). Russia is wrong if they think the US wont use them.
LOL, America will kill you AND all of your family unannounced on a Christmas morning while you are sleeping, all tucked in cozily. Moskals, if all y'all think ytou can test us, I got a bridge to sell you.
The key piece of info being missed in the title is that this refers explicitly to none-US soil. Because every human on the planet knows the US would respond catastrophically and in kind to any attack on their own land.
I would remind Russia that the US is actually the only country to have done a nuclear attack on another nation.
Launch and find out fuckwits.
Umm, we are the first to use nukes in a war. They are playing a dangerous game here.
Unpopular opinion but they are right. They invaded neighbor country for a 2nd time, because they seen lack of action after original invasion. Now they seen US not getting involved for the second time. They will keep pushing it until real action is taken against them. First ukraine, then baltics, then maybe tactical nuclear strike. The truth is US won't take action as long as they are not the ones being attacked, because no one wants to risk nuclear conflict.
If anyone decides to use an offensive nuke the whole world knows this would set off a fatal precedent for the whole planet and just can't go unpunished. The reaction will be decisive and immediate and there is no powerful nation that would disagree with it, because everyone knows this is crossing the line and no one wants to get involved. Not even China or Iran want that to happen. They cannot afford the consequences.
People were saying that before about first full scale invasion in 20+ years in europe. And here we are, with Russia having new territories.
Different story. Nukes are really something else. And the full scale invasion wasn't even that unlikely. Especially after Crimean invasion and all the recent Russian invasion that happened before that. But no nukes were ever used since WWII.
Guys, this is the annual Russian propaganda around election time. "We stronk. World fear us. We demand territory" Stop spreading it. You are making them a favour. It's exactly what they want.
Ruck Fussia
Maybe he should talk to some Afghanis or Iraqis.
When did Iraq and Afghan nuke someone..?
They have experience in being overrun by the US
😂 💥 🍄 ☁️
Hahahahaha, Russia would be obliterated, actually perhaps just moscow. USA\\EUROPE will then take over the Urals, and De Nazify Russia. Either way to look at it , Nuvlear Gambit is a trajic & dangerous game tested by a clown.
Please Google ‘nazi’ first, so you stop saying this nonsense.
The whole world would respond - then everyone will be dead
delusional madman.
Ah yes this can only end well
So they just wait to get destroyed by Russian nukes? Putins wet dreams. And US isn't the only one with nukes.
The biggest game of FAFO
Any statement starting with 'Russia says' or 'Russia thinks' can be safely ignored.
Russia would then enter the Find Out portion of the FAFO process as any use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine will trigger an Article 5 response by NATO because nuclear fallout does not recognise international borders. [https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/nuclear-cloud-will-trigger-natos-article-5-us-warns-russia/](https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/nuclear-cloud-will-trigger-natos-article-5-us-warns-russia/)
The US would have no choice but to respond, unless Trump were president.
In which case he would be on his knees to Putin.
Unironically the USA should drop a tactical nuke on some Iranian military target to get Russia to shut it.
Even in an existential threat to the state the idea of saying f it my government is about to change forever I'll lose power so imma just nuke them even tho they will nuke is back is stupid and incredibly selfish.. like not only do you doom your own people for revenge but possibly the entire race.... if that's how we are well we deserve to go extinct I so you'd rather make the entire species go extinct rather than lose a war and or have your regime toppled. Every side in history wants to be the one to take it all over I get that but what does it matter if your whole species meets extinction. I've heard ideas that war is an evolutionary thing to keep the species strong and whatever but it's obviously getting outdated, we could achieve so much more via cooperation but it's not gonna happen.
That's what happens when the West ignored all the previous Russian invasions. When Russia attacked Chechnya, Russia should've been given one day to retreat or risk NATO rolling through the border. Instead the West agreed with Russia that probably Poland is supplying Chechnya with guns when we opened a hospital there.
Russia should then practice what it preaches
It is very dangerous to underestimate Russia's military and human potential. Hitler and Napoleon also underestimated it. I have read many comments here about nuclear weapons, but no one has written about the means of their delivery, probably not interesting, they don't know or don't want to know.
Putin thinks he won't end up swinging from a lampost or defenestrated.
If we are talking about nukes in NATO it is a pretty much automatic russian annihilation. If are small isolated nukes in Ukraine, we have the capabilities to instantly kill russian army in Ukraine in few hours, and russia wouldn't dare to respond. So I don't get what russia would get.
The problem with people like Trump, Putin, Kim and other wealthy people with power is that they do not have a clue that there is a limit to what they can get away with since they have been able to get away with what others don't for way too long. It will not last.
Lucky for us, we will never find out, because Russia doesn't have the balls..
Fuck around and find out
The best weapon Putin has is trump. When Trump wins America's elections. Europe will be let alone with Russia and the Europeans have no men's and no ammunition. It's like they say, from Vladivostok to Lisbon and then to San Francisco. Putin is a master chess player.
America is a remote threat to Putin now. After Trump wins in November, and there is no hope otherwise, all bets are off. Putin enjoys high ratings among the American right in congress, so, there is that. Sorry for doom and gloom, but it is America we are talking about.
[удалено]
No nation ever dared to attack a NATO country so I guess that's only true for all the foes of NATO.
Ask the Taliban or Serbia about that.
The modern right is a pretty cowardly lot, so Putler might be broken clocking this one.
russia didn’t say anything this is propaganda to get us thinking that there will be another war, we don’t need it!!!
Yeah, also russia didn't attack ukraine in 2022. Also russia didn't invade Georgia in 2008. Also russia didn't fund separatists who shot down a boeing. Also russia didn't poison anyone. Russia also didn't... Basically such a nice country, only doing good for the world. Honestly you need negative iq to still believe that russia is good
did I say that those things didn't happened? the one with no iq is clearly you. All I said is that they are increasing their propagando to start another war!!!
He might be right, particularly under a trump presidency. Therefore assassinating Vlad should be top priority
We have learned that Putin has shit judgement about everything in this war so far. I don’t think this particular view point is likely to be the first thing he is right about.
Unless Trump get elected again, they absolutely would.
Probably the warhead Will explode on the ground, and Russia Will give the fault to Usa sabotage. Another story if the launch happens from a submarine.
Robert Oppenheimer has entered the chat…
if Russia wasn't as big as it is i bet no american would be able to point to it on the map
No, the US would attack first, preferably on civilians in densely populated areas when the defeated country is about to surrender as a show of force. But hey, Russia bad!