Jump to content
JustinCharge

nuclear war - doomsday⌛

Recommended Posts

CNN, etc., is announcing "breaking news" that they are annexing the 4 regions, but actually nothing has changed.  Russia is still waiting until Oct 4th for its legislature to pass and then Putin sign the paperwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are on the cusp of nuclear war.

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-encircles-russian-forces-around-083456297.html

 

Russia abandons key bastion, Putin ally suggests a nuclear response

Tom Balmforth and Pavel Polityuk

Sat, October 1, 2022 at 1:34 AM

By Tom Balmforth and Pavel Polityuk

KYIV (Reuters) -Russia said on Saturday its troops had abandoned the key bastion of Lyman in occupied eastern Ukraine, a stinging defeat that prompted a close ally of President Vladimir Putin to call for the possible use of low-grade nuclear weapons.

The announcement came just a day after Putin proclaimed the annexation of four Ukrainian regions - including Donetsk, where the city of Lyman is located - and placed them under Russia's nuclear umbrella, at a ceremony that was condemned by Kyiv and the West as an illegitimate farce.

"In connection with the creation of a threat of encirclement, allied troops were withdrawn from the settlement of Krasny Liman to more advantageous lines," Russia's defence ministry said, using the Russian name of the town.

President Volodymyr Zelenskiy later said in a video address that although the Ukrainian flag was flying in the city, "fighting is still going on there".

He also indicated Ukrainian troops had taken the village of Torske, on the main road out of Lyman to the east.

The Russian statement ended hours of official silence after Ukraine first said it had surrounded thousands of Russian troops in the area and then that its forces were inside the city.

Ukraine's defence ministry wrote on Twitter that "almost all" the Russian troops in Lyman had either been captured or killed.

Russia has used Lyman as a logistics and transport hub for its operations in the north of the Donetsk region. Its capture would be Ukraine's biggest battlefield gain since a lightning counteroffensive in the northeastern Kharkiv region last month.

Zelenskiy said that in the days to come, Ukrainian forces would liberate more towns.

The recent Ukrainian successes have infuriated Putin allies such as Ramzan Kadyrov, the leader of Russia's southern Chechnya region, who said he felt compelled to speak out.

"In my personal opinion, more drastic measures should be taken, right up to the declaration of martial law in the border areas and the use of low-yield nuclear weapons," Kadyrov wrote on Telegram before Zelenskiy spoke.

Other top Putin allies, including former president Dmitry Medvedev, have suggested Russia may need to resort to nuclear weapons, but Kadyrov's call was the most urgent and explicit.

Putin said last week that he was not bluffing when he said he was prepared to defend Russia's "territorial integrity" with all available means, and on Friday made clear this extended to the new regions claimed by Moscow.

Washington says it would respond decisively to any use of nuclear weapons and has spelled out to Moscow the "catastrophic consequences" it would face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Ukraiine is so afraid of Nuclear war against them that it's "very high risk" they should surrender immediately because they have no nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gepetto said:

If Ukraiine is so afraid of Nuclear war against them that it's "very high risk" they should surrender immediately because they have no nukes.

Did Japan surrender because of the threat of the atom bomb? :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gepetto said:

If Ukraiine is so afraid of Nuclear war against them that it's "very high risk" they should surrender immediately because they have no nukes.

the problem is ukraine is run by idiots and biden is an idiot.  we voted in the worst possible leader at the worst possible time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, craftsman said:

Did Japan surrender because of the threat of the atom bomb? :dunno:

That was before an atom bomb was ever deployed over a human population in the history of the world.  If Japan knew the result they would have surrendered to prevent the leveling of their two large cities I have no doubt.  Ukraine has the lesson of history since they know what happened to Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

literally nuclear war sounds like it is days away.  DAYS.

the ONLY holdup is that Russia wants the political cover of formally annexing the Ukrainian provinces before nuking.  Once they are part of Russia, they can claim their very existence is under attack and according to their nuclear doctrine, that allows them to fire nuclear weapons.  But who do they nuke?  They COULD say Ukraine should be nuked because that is the theater of war and the enemy.  Or they could just go straight for the jugular and nuke the US because we have been training, arming and supplying Ukraine for 7 months.  Nuke the US for that and demand Biden kneel before Putin or Putin will nuke the world. 

But the Russian legislature must push thru annexation and Putin must sign it, which takes place October 4th from the news I read.  After that, its nuclear war.  

We might not be here next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gepetto said:

That was before an atom bomb was ever deployed over a human population in the history of the world.  If Japan knew the result they would have surrendered to prevent the leveling of their two large cities I have no doubt.  Ukraine has the lesson of history since they know what happened to Japan.

im not sure about that.  There has been a slew of propaganda falsely claiming that Putin is bluffing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the chorus is now growing from within Russia's corridors of power to fire nukes.  Its really obvious what is going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Gepetto said:

That was before an atom bomb was ever deployed over a human population in the history of the world.  If Japan knew the result they would have surrendered to prevent the leveling of their two large cities I have no doubt.  Ukraine has the lesson of history since they know what happened to Japan.

I'm not going to say you are wrong, but there are thoughts that Japan surrendered for other reasons.

 

Nuclear weapons shocked Japan into surrendering at the end of World War II—except they didn't. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union entered the war. Japanese leaders said the bomb forced them to surrender because it was less embarrassing to say they had been defeated by a miracle weapon.Americans wanted to believe it, and the myth of nuclear weapons was born.

Look at the facts. The United States bombed 68 cities in the summer of 1945. If you graph the number of people killed in all 68 of those attacks, you imagine that Hiroshima is off the charts, because that’s the way it’s usually presented. In fact, Hiroshima is second. Tokyo, a conventional attack, is first in the number killed. If you graph the number of square miles destroyed, Hiroshima is sixth. If you graph the percentage of the city destroyed, Hiroshima is 17th.

Clearly, in terms of the end result—I’m not talking about the means, but in terms of the outcome of the attack—Hiroshima was not exceptional. It was not outside the parameters of attacks that had been going on all summer long. Hiroshima was not militarily decisive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putin have a huge speech yesterday to thunderous applause.  I posted it in the Ukraine - Doomsday thread but it belongs here too.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, craftsman said:

I'm not going to say you are wrong, but there are thoughts that Japan surrendered for other reasons.

 

Nuclear weapons shocked Japan into surrendering at the end of World War II—except they didn't. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union entered the war. Japanese leaders said the bomb forced them to surrender because it was less embarrassing to say they had been defeated by a miracle weapon.Americans wanted to believe it, and the myth of nuclear weapons was born.

Look at the facts. The United States bombed 68 cities in the summer of 1945. If you graph the number of people killed in all 68 of those attacks, you imagine that Hiroshima is off the charts, because that’s the way it’s usually presented. In fact, Hiroshima is second. Tokyo, a conventional attack, is first in the number killed. If you graph the number of square miles destroyed, Hiroshima is sixth. If you graph the percentage of the city destroyed, Hiroshima is 17th.

Clearly, in terms of the end result—I’m not talking about the means, but in terms of the outcome of the attack—Hiroshima was not exceptional. It was not outside the parameters of attacks that had been going on all summer long. Hiroshima was not militarily decisive. 

OK.  That's fine.  My point is if Ukraine wants to spread their fear of nuclear weapons being launched against them, does the world believe them, does the world believe Putin's threats?  Does it matter?  What is Ukraine going to do, if anything, concerning, these threats of nuclear weapons?  Or is it just a way to get more billions of dollars and weaponry from the United States and more support from the U.S. and NATO countries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gepetto said:

OK.  That's fine.  My point is if Ukraine wants to spread their fear of nuclear weapons being launched against them, does the world believe them, does the world believe Putin's threats?  Does it matter?  What is Ukraine going to do, if anything, concerning, these threats of nuclear weapons? 

i feel confident in saying no-one knows what to do.  we elected a bunch of spineless liars spewing hate.  we are locked in and our leaders are too stupid to alter course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

i feel confident in saying no-one knows what to do.  we elected a bunch of spineless liars spewing hate.  we are locked in and our leaders are too stupid to alter course.

Perhaps you should go outside and get some sunshine. Maybe go for a walk around the block. I'm sure all the nuclear alerts on your phone will notify you in plenty of time to get back into the bunker under your mom's house should the ICBMs start flying. 🚀

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

Putin have a huge speech yesterday to thunderous applause.  I posted it in the Ukraine - Doomsday thread but it belongs here too.

 

 

It makes no sense that he would give such a long speech considering he's in the biggest geopolitical pickle of his presidency. 

He should have just walked out, said, "Russia is great," dropped the mic and walked off.

And then the West quickly would submit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JustinCharge said:

literally nuclear war sounds like it is days away.  DAYS.

the ONLY holdup is that Russia wants the political cover of formally annexing the Ukrainian provinces before nuking.  Once they are part of Russia, they can claim their very existence is under attack and according to their nuclear doctrine, that allows them to fire nuclear weapons.  But who do they nuke?  They COULD say Ukraine should be nuked because that is the theater of war and the enemy.  Or they could just go straight for the jugular and nuke the US because we have been training, arming and supplying Ukraine for 7 months.  Nuke the US for that and demand Biden kneel before Putin or Putin will nuke the world. 

But the Russian legislature must push thru annexation and Putin must sign it, which takes place October 4th from the news I read.  After that, its nuclear war.  

We might not be here next week.

No Justin, we will be here next week.  Have a drink.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JustinCharge said:

literally nuclear war sounds like it is days away.  DAYS.

the ONLY holdup is that Russia wants the political cover of formally annexing the Ukrainian provinces before nuking.  Once they are part of Russia, they can claim their very existence is under attack and according to their nuclear doctrine, that allows them to fire nuclear weapons.  But who do they nuke?  They COULD say Ukraine should be nuked because that is the theater of war and the enemy.  Or they could just go straight for the jugular and nuke the US because we have been training, arming and supplying Ukraine for 7 months.  Nuke the US for that and demand Biden kneel before Putin or Putin will nuke the world. 

But the Russian legislature must push thru annexation and Putin must sign it, which takes place October 4th from the news I read.  After that, its nuclear war.  

We might not be here next week.

Just to be clear.  Wasn't the prediction that the US would be nuked?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/washington-putins-nuclear-threats-stir-142315979.html

 

In Washington, Putin's Nuclear Threats Stir Growing Alarm

David E. Sanger

Sun, October 2, 2022 at 7:23 AM

WASHINGTON — For the first time since the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962, top government leaders in Moscow are making explicit nuclear threats and officials in Washington are gaming out scenarios should President Vladimir Putin decide to use a tactical nuclear weapon to make up for the failings of Russian troops in Ukraine.

In a speech Friday, Putin raised the prospect anew, calling the United States and NATO enemies seeking Russia’s collapse and declaring again that he would use “all available means” to defend Russian territory — which he has now declared includes four provinces of eastern Ukraine.

Putin reminded the world of President Harry S. Truman’s decision to drop atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, 77 years ago, adding, “By the way, they created a precedent.” On Saturday, the strongman leader of the southern Russian republic of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, said Putin should consider using “low-yield nuclear weapons” in Ukraine, becoming the first prominent Russian official to openly call for such a strike.

Senior U.S. officials say they think the chances that Putin would employ a nuclear weapon remain low. They say they have seen no evidence that he is moving any of his nuclear assets, and a recent Pentagon analysis suggests the military benefits would be few. And the cost for Putin — in a furious international response, perhaps even from the Chinese, whose support he needs most — could be tremendous.

But they are far more worried about the possibility now than they were at the beginning of the Ukraine conflict in February. After a series of humiliating retreats, astoundingly high casualty rates and a deeply unpopular move to draft young Russian men into service, Putin clearly sees the threat of his nuclear arsenal as a way to instill fear, and perhaps to recover some respect for Russia’s power.

Most important, he may see the threat of unleashing part of his stockpile of roughly 2,000 so-called tactical nuclear weapons as a way to extort concessions that he has been unable to win on the battlefield. Such weapons involve much smaller, less-powerful warheads than those used in intercontinental missiles, which can destroy whole cities. Some tactical nuclear warheads are small enough to fit in individual artillery rounds, although they can still devastate and irradiate a few blocks, or a single military base.

Some Russian military analysts have suggested exploding a tactical weapon over a remote place like the Black Sea as a demonstration, or perhaps actually using one against a Ukrainian base.

“This is not a bluff,” Putin said last month, a reminder that making first use of nuclear weapons is an integral part of Russian military strategy. Last weekend, President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, responded that any nuclear weapon use would result in “catastrophic consequences” for Russia, adding that in private communications with Moscow, the United States had “spelled out” how America and the world would react.

Such threats and counterthreats, seemingly right out of the worst moments of the Cold War, are exactly the kind that most Americans and Russians thought ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

For a quarter-century, both sides celebrated a reduction in their strategic weapons, the intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach across oceans. Congress spent billions of dollars in the 1990s on programs that paid for dismantling old Soviet warheads and blending them down into fuel for nuclear power plants. For years, American homes were lit, in part, with the remnants of city-busting bombs. When nuclear threats were made, it was mostly by aspiring atomic powers, like North Korea, which has not yet demonstrated that its weapons can reach American shores.

But in the past seven months, that has changed.

In issuing his warning to Russia last week, Sullivan declined to describe the playbook of U.S. or NATO responses, knowing that one key to Cold War deterrence was some degree of ambiguity.

But in background conversations, a range of officials suggested that if Russia detonated a tactical nuclear weapon on Ukrainian soil, the options included unplugging Russia from the world economy or some kind of military response — although one that would most likely be delivered by the Ukrainians with Western-provided, conventional weapons.

For their part, Russian analysts and officials see the specter of nuclear conflict as giving a distinct advantage to their side.

Because the outcome of the war in Ukraine is of existential significance to the Kremlin, but not to the White House, they say, Russian officials seem to believe they would have the advantage in the test of wills that nuclear brinkmanship represents.

Dmitry Medvedev, a former Russian president and the hawkish vice chair of Putin’s Security Council, laid out that thesis this past week in a post on the Telegram social network. If Russia were forced to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, he argued, it was unlikely that NATO would intervene militarily because of the risk that a direct attack on Russia could lead to all-out nuclear war.

“Overseas and European demagogues are not going to perish in a nuclear apocalypse,” he wrote. “Therefore, they will swallow the use of any weapon in the current conflict.”

As the full extent of Ukraine’s gains in its September counteroffensive became apparent, the Biden administration intensified its study of the steps that Putin might take to reverse the perception that the Russian army was losing the war. Administration officials quickly saw some of their predictions come true, as Putin announced a mobilization of military reserves despite the dissent it provoked.

Now, with the annexation of Ukrainian territory, worry is rising in Washington. Should Ukraine be able to build on its success, and Putin face humiliating defeat, U.S. officials are concerned he might quickly push through the remaining steps and consider the use of a nuclear weapon.

And with Russian forces retreating from the strategic railroad hub of Lyman — in territory annexed by Moscow on Friday — Russia continues to lose ground in eastern Ukraine.

Putin clearly sees Russia’s nuclear arsenal as the foundation of what remains of Russia’s great power status.

He has trumpeted its world-destroying potential in his state-of-the-nation speeches and has insisted that in the event of a nuclear war, “we would go to paradise as martyrs, while they would simply perish.”

The revelation of the Ukraine conflict — that Russia’s conventional forces were poorly trained, unimaginative and ill-equipped — has made Putin all the more dependent on his unconventional weapons, an inherently unstable balance of forces.

“We’re in a situation in which superiority in resources and conventional weaponry is on the side of the West,” said Vasily Kashin, who specializes in military and political issues at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow. “Russia’s power is based on its nuclear arsenal.”

The problem for Putin is how to wring real-world advantage from the destructive force of Russia’s nuclear warheads without actually using them. To some degree, he has been successful. Biden’s reluctance to put U.S. or NATO troops into direct combat roles, or to provide Ukraine with weapons that could strike deep inside Russia, is rooted in concern about nuclear escalation.

But Putin also faces constraints. His threat to use nuclear weapons must seem credible, and the repeated incantation of nuclear threats can undermine their effectiveness. The threat may be more effective than actually using a weapon because the cost to Russia of breaking a 77-year taboo could be astronomically high. Most experts think he would reach for them only if Russia — or Putin himself — felt an existential threat.

“The chance that Putin would strike out of the blue seems very low,” said Graham T. Allison, the author of a seminal 1971 book about the Cuban missile crisis, “Essence of Decision.” “But as Kennedy said back then, the plausible scenario is if a leader is forced to choose between a catastrophic humiliation and a roll of the dice that might yield success.”

Allison suspects Putin will not face that choice unless Ukraine succeeds in pushing Russia out of the areas Putin annexed Friday.

For that reason, the next few weeks could prove a particularly dangerous time, a range of U.S. and European officials agree. But Putin is not likely to use a nuclear weapon immediately. His initial steps, according to the officials, would probably involve a sabotage campaign in Europe, attacking Ukraine’s energy infrastructure or targeting senior officials in Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital. Some officials wonder if the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines may have been a first step — although it is not clear Russia was behind that sabotage.

But by escalating his nuclear threats in combination with the annexation, Putin appears to have two goals in mind. One is to scare the United States and NATO from direct intervention in Ukraine. The second is to force the West to back off supporting Ukraine at all, or to perhaps force the Ukrainians to the negotiating table in a disadvantageous position.

In Russia, the airwaves are filled with threats that constantly refer to Moscow’s nuclear options.

In a recent state television interview, foreign policy analyst Dmitri Trenin said that Russia needed to convince Washington that escalation could lead to nuclear strikes against the American mainland.

“The American strategy of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia is based on the belief that Russia will not use nuclear weapons: Either it will be afraid, or it will consider that the destruction of civilization is still too high a price for maintaining its position,” Trenin said. “And here, in my opinion, lies a potentially fatal miscalculation for all of humanity.”

But the threshold at which Putin would resort to nuclear weapons — or how he would use them — is far from clear. Another analyst, Ivan Timofeev, said in a phone interview that he believed that Putin would use them only in the event of direct NATO intervention in Ukraine.

Using them against Ukrainian forces in the context of the current war would bring limited military advantage while deepening Russia’s international isolation, he said.

“I don’t see the possibility that China or India or any other country friendly to Russia would support such a decision,” said Timofeev, the program director for the Russian International Affairs Council, a research organization close to the Russian government. “If you look at interests pragmatically and rationally, this scenario is not beneficial to Russia.”

Kashin, the Higher School of Economics professor, said that his analysis of recent statements by Russian officials led him to conclude that Putin’s annexation Friday was a signal that further major gains by Ukraine could lead to nuclear use.

“These territories will not be given up,” Kashin said.

Putin’s veiled threats about using nuclear weapons have suggested he has also given thought to large-scale, game-changing strikes. He said last year that anyone threatening Russia’s core interests would face an “asymmetric, swift and tough” response. And in June, he was vague when asked how he would respond if Ukraine and the West crossed certain “red lines” in the war.

But Putin warned that Russia could target “decision-making centers,” a broad term that analysts have interpreted as major government buildings and other military and political hubs.

“With regard to the red lines,” he said, “let me keep this to myself because on our part, it will include fairly tough actions targeted at the decision-making centers.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden and the democrats are treating Putin as if he was a milquetoast republican.  Shame him publicly, control the narrative / lie, control the game board, and then watch as he either collapses or support flees him.  But that's not what he is.  He is a Christian fundamentalist.  He isn't going to sit down and the democrats game board and play by their rules.  I think its slowly dawning on them tho.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JustinCharge said:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/washington-putins-nuclear-threats-stir-142315979.html

 

In Washington, Putin's Nuclear Threats Stir Growing Alarm

David E. Sanger

Sun, October 2, 2022 at 7:23 AM

WASHINGTON — For the first time since the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962, top government leaders in Moscow are making explicit nuclear threats and officials in Washington are gaming out scenarios should President Vladimir Putin decide to use a tactical nuclear weapon to make up for the failings of Russian troops in Ukraine.

In a speech Friday, Putin raised the prospect anew, calling the United States and NATO enemies seeking Russia’s collapse and declaring again that he would use “all available means” to defend Russian territory — which he has now declared includes four provinces of eastern Ukraine.

Putin reminded the world of President Harry S. Truman’s decision to drop atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, 77 years ago, adding, “By the way, they created a precedent.” On Saturday, the strongman leader of the southern Russian republic of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, said Putin should consider using “low-yield nuclear weapons” in Ukraine, becoming the first prominent Russian official to openly call for such a strike.

Senior U.S. officials say they think the chances that Putin would employ a nuclear weapon remain low. They say they have seen no evidence that he is moving any of his nuclear assets, and a recent Pentagon analysis suggests the military benefits would be few. And the cost for Putin — in a furious international response, perhaps even from the Chinese, whose support he needs most — could be tremendous.

But they are far more worried about the possibility now than they were at the beginning of the Ukraine conflict in February. After a series of humiliating retreats, astoundingly high casualty rates and a deeply unpopular move to draft young Russian men into service, Putin clearly sees the threat of his nuclear arsenal as a way to instill fear, and perhaps to recover some respect for Russia’s power.

Most important, he may see the threat of unleashing part of his stockpile of roughly 2,000 so-called tactical nuclear weapons as a way to extort concessions that he has been unable to win on the battlefield. Such weapons involve much smaller, less-powerful warheads than those used in intercontinental missiles, which can destroy whole cities. Some tactical nuclear warheads are small enough to fit in individual artillery rounds, although they can still devastate and irradiate a few blocks, or a single military base.

Some Russian military analysts have suggested exploding a tactical weapon over a remote place like the Black Sea as a demonstration, or perhaps actually using one against a Ukrainian base.

“This is not a bluff,” Putin said last month, a reminder that making first use of nuclear weapons is an integral part of Russian military strategy. Last weekend, President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, responded that any nuclear weapon use would result in “catastrophic consequences” for Russia, adding that in private communications with Moscow, the United States had “spelled out” how America and the world would react.

Such threats and counterthreats, seemingly right out of the worst moments of the Cold War, are exactly the kind that most Americans and Russians thought ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

For a quarter-century, both sides celebrated a reduction in their strategic weapons, the intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach across oceans. Congress spent billions of dollars in the 1990s on programs that paid for dismantling old Soviet warheads and blending them down into fuel for nuclear power plants. For years, American homes were lit, in part, with the remnants of city-busting bombs. When nuclear threats were made, it was mostly by aspiring atomic powers, like North Korea, which has not yet demonstrated that its weapons can reach American shores.

But in the past seven months, that has changed.

In issuing his warning to Russia last week, Sullivan declined to describe the playbook of U.S. or NATO responses, knowing that one key to Cold War deterrence was some degree of ambiguity.

But in background conversations, a range of officials suggested that if Russia detonated a tactical nuclear weapon on Ukrainian soil, the options included unplugging Russia from the world economy or some kind of military response — although one that would most likely be delivered by the Ukrainians with Western-provided, conventional weapons.

For their part, Russian analysts and officials see the specter of nuclear conflict as giving a distinct advantage to their side.

Because the outcome of the war in Ukraine is of existential significance to the Kremlin, but not to the White House, they say, Russian officials seem to believe they would have the advantage in the test of wills that nuclear brinkmanship represents.

Dmitry Medvedev, a former Russian president and the hawkish vice chair of Putin’s Security Council, laid out that thesis this past week in a post on the Telegram social network. If Russia were forced to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, he argued, it was unlikely that NATO would intervene militarily because of the risk that a direct attack on Russia could lead to all-out nuclear war.

“Overseas and European demagogues are not going to perish in a nuclear apocalypse,” he wrote. “Therefore, they will swallow the use of any weapon in the current conflict.”

As the full extent of Ukraine’s gains in its September counteroffensive became apparent, the Biden administration intensified its study of the steps that Putin might take to reverse the perception that the Russian army was losing the war. Administration officials quickly saw some of their predictions come true, as Putin announced a mobilization of military reserves despite the dissent it provoked.

Now, with the annexation of Ukrainian territory, worry is rising in Washington. Should Ukraine be able to build on its success, and Putin face humiliating defeat, U.S. officials are concerned he might quickly push through the remaining steps and consider the use of a nuclear weapon.

And with Russian forces retreating from the strategic railroad hub of Lyman — in territory annexed by Moscow on Friday — Russia continues to lose ground in eastern Ukraine.

Putin clearly sees Russia’s nuclear arsenal as the foundation of what remains of Russia’s great power status.

He has trumpeted its world-destroying potential in his state-of-the-nation speeches and has insisted that in the event of a nuclear war, “we would go to paradise as martyrs, while they would simply perish.”

The revelation of the Ukraine conflict — that Russia’s conventional forces were poorly trained, unimaginative and ill-equipped — has made Putin all the more dependent on his unconventional weapons, an inherently unstable balance of forces.

“We’re in a situation in which superiority in resources and conventional weaponry is on the side of the West,” said Vasily Kashin, who specializes in military and political issues at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow. “Russia’s power is based on its nuclear arsenal.”

The problem for Putin is how to wring real-world advantage from the destructive force of Russia’s nuclear warheads without actually using them. To some degree, he has been successful. Biden’s reluctance to put U.S. or NATO troops into direct combat roles, or to provide Ukraine with weapons that could strike deep inside Russia, is rooted in concern about nuclear escalation.

But Putin also faces constraints. His threat to use nuclear weapons must seem credible, and the repeated incantation of nuclear threats can undermine their effectiveness. The threat may be more effective than actually using a weapon because the cost to Russia of breaking a 77-year taboo could be astronomically high. Most experts think he would reach for them only if Russia — or Putin himself — felt an existential threat.

“The chance that Putin would strike out of the blue seems very low,” said Graham T. Allison, the author of a seminal 1971 book about the Cuban missile crisis, “Essence of Decision.” “But as Kennedy said back then, the plausible scenario is if a leader is forced to choose between a catastrophic humiliation and a roll of the dice that might yield success.”

Allison suspects Putin will not face that choice unless Ukraine succeeds in pushing Russia out of the areas Putin annexed Friday.

For that reason, the next few weeks could prove a particularly dangerous time, a range of U.S. and European officials agree. But Putin is not likely to use a nuclear weapon immediately. His initial steps, according to the officials, would probably involve a sabotage campaign in Europe, attacking Ukraine’s energy infrastructure or targeting senior officials in Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital. Some officials wonder if the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines may have been a first step — although it is not clear Russia was behind that sabotage.

But by escalating his nuclear threats in combination with the annexation, Putin appears to have two goals in mind. One is to scare the United States and NATO from direct intervention in Ukraine. The second is to force the West to back off supporting Ukraine at all, or to perhaps force the Ukrainians to the negotiating table in a disadvantageous position.

In Russia, the airwaves are filled with threats that constantly refer to Moscow’s nuclear options.

In a recent state television interview, foreign policy analyst Dmitri Trenin said that Russia needed to convince Washington that escalation could lead to nuclear strikes against the American mainland.

“The American strategy of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia is based on the belief that Russia will not use nuclear weapons: Either it will be afraid, or it will consider that the destruction of civilization is still too high a price for maintaining its position,” Trenin said. “And here, in my opinion, lies a potentially fatal miscalculation for all of humanity.”

But the threshold at which Putin would resort to nuclear weapons — or how he would use them — is far from clear. Another analyst, Ivan Timofeev, said in a phone interview that he believed that Putin would use them only in the event of direct NATO intervention in Ukraine.

Using them against Ukrainian forces in the context of the current war would bring limited military advantage while deepening Russia’s international isolation, he said.

“I don’t see the possibility that China or India or any other country friendly to Russia would support such a decision,” said Timofeev, the program director for the Russian International Affairs Council, a research organization close to the Russian government. “If you look at interests pragmatically and rationally, this scenario is not beneficial to Russia.”

Kashin, the Higher School of Economics professor, said that his analysis of recent statements by Russian officials led him to conclude that Putin’s annexation Friday was a signal that further major gains by Ukraine could lead to nuclear use.

“These territories will not be given up,” Kashin said.

Putin’s veiled threats about using nuclear weapons have suggested he has also given thought to large-scale, game-changing strikes. He said last year that anyone threatening Russia’s core interests would face an “asymmetric, swift and tough” response. And in June, he was vague when asked how he would respond if Ukraine and the West crossed certain “red lines” in the war.

But Putin warned that Russia could target “decision-making centers,” a broad term that analysts have interpreted as major government buildings and other military and political hubs.

“With regard to the red lines,” he said, “let me keep this to myself because on our part, it will include fairly tough actions targeted at the decision-making centers.”

 

I would rather have a nuclear war than read all of this. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putin cracks me up.  "Let's go fake a vote showing to supposedly legitimize the annexation of Ukrainian land, so we can justify nuking Ukraine." 

If your end game is nuking Ukraine why does the legitimacy of the annexation even matter?

All that really matters is the world's response, and he surely must realize no one thinks it's legitimate whether he holds a fake vote or not.

Biden is doing exactly what he should be doing which is saying everything is on the table if he nukes Ukraine.  Of course, Biden isn't going to get into a nuclear war if Putin decides to nuke Ukraine.

All that does is take Ukraine off the board for both sides, but Russia suffers more than anyone (sans Ukraine) because they'll essentially be cut out of the world economy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nobody said:

Putin cracks me up.  "Let's go fake a vote showing to supposedly legitimize the annexation of Ukrainian land, so we can justify nuking Ukraine." 

If your end game is nuking Ukraine why does the legitimacy of the annexation even matter?

All that really matters is the world's response, and he surely must realize no one thinks it's legitimate whether he holds a fake vote or not.

Biden is doing exactly what he should be doing which is saying everything is on the table if he nukes Ukraine.  Of course, Biden isn't going to get into a nuclear war if Putin decides to nuke Ukraine.

All that does is take Ukraine off the board for both sides, but Russia suffers more than anyone (sans Ukraine) because they'll essentially be cut out of the world economy.  

Ok. So who will cut him off? China? North Korea? 

I have no idea, but just curious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, craftsman said:

 

I have no idea, but just curious. 

Yeah, about sex with a 14-year-old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nobody said:

Putin cracks me up.  "Let's go fake a vote showing to supposedly legitimize the annexation of Ukrainian land, so we can justify nuking Ukraine." 

If your end game is nuking Ukraine why does the legitimacy of the annexation even matter?

because the liberals have a history of talking tough and then abandoning everything and fleeing when push comes to shove, such as pallets of cash or abandoning everything in afghanistan.  Biden couldnt stand up to the focking taliban and abandoned allies, equipment, everything we worked on for 20 years.  So that emboldens Putin to think that if he nukes, the US will just back down and do nothing.

With that in mind, Putin would assume Biden wants to flee again.  So Putin is building an out clause for Biden by saying once annexation is complete, he can nuke and the US should back down.  in fact, the disasterous pullout of afghanistan emboldens putin to build a case where he can nuke the US and biden should feel guilty and surrender because WW2 japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General Patreus makes a silly case that if Russia nukes Ukraine, we should go into Ukraine and start killing Russians directly and bombing their ships.  That would just be WW3 and Putin would nuke the US and the world into oblivion.  what a moron.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/petraeus-predicts-us-lead-nato-190325472.html

Petraeus predicts US would lead NATO response to ‘take out’ Russian forces if Putin uses nuclear weapon

Olafimihan Oshin

Sun, October 2, 2022 at 12:03 PM

Retired Gen. David Petraeus predicted Sunday that the U.S., along with NATO allies, would “take out” Russian forces if Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to use nuclear weapons in his war against neighboring Ukraine.

During an appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Petraeus told co-anchor Jonathan Karl that western powers have to take Russia’s nuclear weapons threats seriously, noting National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan’s recent remarks that US officials have warned the Moscow of “catastrophic consequences” if the Kremlin deploys nuclear weapons.

“And what would happen?” Karl asked.

“Well, again, I have deliberately not talked to Jake about this. I mean, just to give you a hypothetical, we would respond by leading a NATO, a collective effort, that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea,” Petraeus replied.

Karl noted radiation from a nuclear attack in Ukraine would also likely reach nearby NATO countries, effectively making it an attack on the alliance.

“Yes. And perhaps you can make that case. The other case is that this is so horrific that there has to be a response, it cannot go unanswered. But it doesn’t expand, it doesn’t — it’s not nuclear for nuclear,” Petraeus added. “You don’t want to, again, get into a nuclear escalation here. But you have to show that this cannot be accepted in any way.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really should get some counseling. Your unhinged behavior is disturbing. Seriously. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JustinCharge said:

because the liberals have a history of talking tough and then abandoning everything and fleeing when push comes to shove, such as pallets of cash or abandoning everything in afghanistan.  Biden couldnt stand up to the focking taliban and abandoned allies, equipment, everything we worked on for 20 years.  So that emboldens Putin to think that if he nukes, the US will just back down and do nothing.

With that in mind, Putin would assume Biden wants to flee again.  So Putin is building an out clause for Biden by saying once annexation is complete, he can nuke and the US should back down.  in fact, the disasterous pullout of afghanistan emboldens putin to build a case where he can nuke the US and biden should feel guilty and surrender because WW2 japan.

You keep posting things like this, but isn't your stance that we should just give Putin what he wants?

I thought you called Biden stupid for saying the US would step in if Russia nuked Ukraine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Putin nukes, the liberal bots will probably drop into "shoot the messenger" mode and seriously try to get offended at things I have said, or will lie about things I've said and get offended at that and report me a zillion times.  or something like "now we have to ignore him and "take this serious"".  that standard liberal bot programming.  seen it many times before used against various people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nobody said:

You keep posting things like this, but isn't your stance that we should just give Putin what he wants?

I thought you called Biden stupid for saying the US would step in if Russia nuked Ukraine.

I think Biden has already stepped in enough by funding this war. The question is, what will he do as tough guy Joe if Russia actually throws a nuke at Ukraine. Putin is more the type of guy that would say, "well, if I can't have it, then nobody can have it. And I'll still own it's gas and oil".

Biden could threaten all the sanctions he wants, the gauntlet would be thrown down and with no military retaliation, nukes are now on the table for Russia to use.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JustinCharge said:

When Putin nukes, the liberal bots will probably drop into "shoot the messenger" mode and seriously try to get offended at things I have said, or will lie about things I've said and get offended at that and report me a zillion times.  or something like "now we have to ignore him and "take this serious"".  that standard liberal bot programming.  seen it many times before used against various people.

You're such a coward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ladimir-putin-ukraine-russia-nuclear-152445532.html

 

‘Highly likely' Vladimir Putin will conduct nuclear test to show off new technology

Jimmy Nsubuga

Tue, October 4, 2022 at 8:24 AM

A military expert has said it is highly likely Russia will conduct a nuclear test to show off new technology amid the war with Ukraine.

On Monday, the NATO military alliance warned members Vladimir Putin was set to demonstrate his willingness to use nuclear weapons by carrying out a test on Ukraine's border, The Times newspaper reported.

He added: “The use of nuclear weapons is a path to suicide for Russia and that’s a clear message that is being given.

“That said, we said Putin would be stupid to invade Ukraine, and he did it anyway

“Now we’re saying it would be pretty stupid to use nuclear weapons, but we are in an unpredictable situation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent. Go Putin. The liberals will deny it even while they are sucking in radioactive air. 

No surprise it happens under Biden's watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really another non-news story.

What would Putin do if he was going to nuke Ukraine?

  1. Warn the world that if he doesn't get what he wants, he's going to nuke Ukraine
  2. Step up to outright threats that if he doesn't get what he wants he's going to nuke Ukraine
  3. Make a big show about moving nukes in position
  4. Conduct missile tests
  5. Conduct nuclear tests
  6. Mobilize and test missile defense batteries to show you're prepping for a potential nuclear war 

Now, what would Putin do if he wanted people to think he would nuke Ukraine?

  1. Warn the world that if he doesn't get what he wants, he's going to nuke Ukraine
  2. Step up to outright threats that if he doesn't get what he wants he's going to nuke Ukraine
  3. Make a big show about moving nukes in position
  4. Conduct missile tests
  5. Conduct nuclear tests 
  6. Mobilize and test missile defense batteries to show you're prepping for a potential nuclear war 
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, craftsman said:

Excellent. Go Putin. The liberals will deny it even while they are sucking in radioactive air. 

No surprise it happens under Biden's watch.

Dude roots for nuclear war if it hurts Biden.  What a jack ass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Dude roots for nuclear war if it hurts Biden.  What a jack ass

Yeah, just like I rooted for a shltty economy, high gas prices, inflation, killing servicemen in Afghanistan, opening the border to 4+ million illegals bringing in their death drugs and implementing a major tax and spend on stupid wasteful things that will never make a difference in this world. :rolleyes:

I voted against the idiot, you are the commies that won the election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, craftsman said:

Yeah, just like I rooted for a shltty economy, high gas prices, inflation, killing servicemen in Afghanistan, opening the border to 4+ million illegals bringing in their death drugs and implementing a major tax and spend on stupid wasteful things that will never make a difference in this world. :rolleyes:

I voted against the idiot, you are the commies that won the election. 

Yeah exactly, you rooted for inflation last week.  You want to see America fail.  You hate America 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shooter McGavin said:

Yeah exactly, you rooted for inflation last week.  You want to see America fail.  You hate America 

Just til November. :thumbsup:

We're almost there scooter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nobody said:

This is really another non-news story.

What would Putin do if he was going to nuke Ukraine?

  1. Warn the world that if he doesn't get what he wants, he's going to nuke Ukraine
  2. Step up to outright threats that if he doesn't get what he wants he's going to nuke Ukraine
  3. Make a big show about moving nukes in position
  4. Conduct missile tests
  5. Conduct nuclear tests
  6. Mobilize and test missile defense batteries to show you're prepping for a potential nuclear war 

Now, what would Putin do if he wanted people to think he would nuke Ukraine?

  1. Warn the world that if he doesn't get what he wants, he's going to nuke Ukraine
  2. Step up to outright threats that if he doesn't get what he wants he's going to nuke Ukraine
  3. Make a big show about moving nukes in position
  4. Conduct missile tests
  5. Conduct nuclear tests 
  6. Mobilize and test missile defense batteries to show you're prepping for a potential nuclear war 

 

judging by Putin's huge september 30th speech, the target us the US, not Ukraine.  But we will see.  i mean, if you are gonna nuke ukraine, that pretty much means ww3 and you are gonna wind up nuking the US anyway, so skip the middleman.

To me, Putin's play is likey to open WW3 the same way WW2 ended.  Nuke a few US cities and immediately demand the US surrender or else its all out global thermnuclear war.  if Biden so much as hesitates, throw 1000 nukes everywhere and blow up the world.  I am mildly surprised he didnt do this already because he had no shot to win a conventional war vs nato anyway.  it was always nukes once the ball got rolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×