Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

image.png

 

Vladimir Putin’s recent remarks on Russia’s nuclear doctrine have raised alarms, suggesting a potential shift in how Moscow might use its atomic arsenal. While he didn’t directly reference Ukraine, Putin’s insinuation that a strike from a non-nuclear state supported by a nuclear-armed nation could be seen as a “joint attack” has fueled debate. The Kremlin’s carefully crafted rhetoric seems designed to keep the West guessing, and it may have just done that.

 

New NATO chief Mark Rutte was quick to condemn Putin’s statements at the Russian Security Council on September 25, labeling them “reckless and irresponsible.” Rutte also reassured that despite the provocative language, it didn’t necessarily mean the world was closer to a nuclear conflict. Nevertheless, Putin’s subtle warnings, which have been amplified by Russian propagandists, now appear to be supported by a formal change in Russia’s nuclear doctrine.

 

Mark Galeotti, a senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, pointed out how the evolving nature of warfare plays into this narrative, especially with the increasing role of drones. “It’s a reflection of how war is changing and the importance of the drone, which in the future could carry a nuclear warhead,” Galeotti told *Newsweek*. He also mentioned that Russia may be preparing for a post-ceasefire scenario in which they seek to freeze the frontline in Ukraine.

 

Russia’s nuclear doctrine has always been ambiguous. It permits the use of atomic weapons in the event of first strikes or attacks that present an existential threat to Russia. However, what exactly constitutes an “existential threat” is not clearly defined. Putin recently elaborated that Russia would consider using nuclear weapons if there were signs of a massive missile, aircraft, or drone assault on its territory, calling such a situation a “critical threat” to its sovereignty.

 

Galeotti believes this is a thinly veiled threat aimed at Ukraine. “This notion that a non-nuclear state that is being supported and backed by a nuclear state could trigger a nuclear response is a pretty transparent way of saying, ‘if Ukraine launches some kind of major offensive, we reserve unto ourselves the right to be able to go nuclear in response,’” he said.

 

Putin’s nuclear posturing coincides with the failed test of Russia’s RS-Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile, capable of striking targets thousands of miles away. Despite this failure, Putin had previously boasted in June about Russia’s stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons, which are smaller and designed for use on the battlefield. Tactical nuclear weapons have been dismissed as having little battlefield advantage in the Ukraine war. Moreover, Western satellite technology would likely provide early warning of any nuclear preparation by Russia.

 

Dan Caldwell, professor emeritus at Pepperdine University, explained, “Moving nuclear warheads to mate with missiles is a logistical problem and would provide western intelligence agencies with firm evidence that Putin is serious about his threat.”

 

Peter Rutland, a professor of Russian studies at Wesleyan University, pointed out that Putin’s statements don’t necessarily represent a significant shift in doctrine. “Russia claims that the war is going well for them, with incremental territorial gains in Donbas and a harsh winter looming in Ukraine given the damaged energy infrastructure,” Rutland noted.

 

Meanwhile, military expert David Silbey suggested that Putin’s rhetoric is likely aimed at deterring the West from further aiding Ukraine’s long-range strikes. “Putin doesn’t want to destroy Ukraine; he wants to conquer it,” Silbey said. “Russia is winning, currently, and there’s no need for him to escalate drastically.”

 

While the possibility of Russia using nuclear weapons cannot be ruled out, analysts agree that it remains a last resort, especially if Russia feels it is on the winning side. As Mariana Budjeryn of the Project on Managing the Atom posited, nuclear weapons might come into play when Russia has the upper hand, drawing parallels to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings during World War II. “Continued resistance from Kyiv would be suddenly rendered foolhardy, if not suicidal,” she wrote.

 

For now, much of Russia’s nuclear posturing may be tied to gauging reactions from the West, particularly the U.S. The outcome of the U.S. presidential election could influence Putin’s next steps. As Mark Galeotti summarized, “He is a rational actor, but he knows full well that his appetite for risk is probably a little greater than that of the West.”

 

Based on a report from Newsweek 2024-10-07

 

news-logo-btm.jpg

 

news-footer-4.png

 

image.png

  • Haha 1
Posted

Nothing would get Putin out of Ukraine faster than US troops arriving.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Agree 1
Posted

If he wants to destroy his country, kill many people in his country and ruin the world, go for it.

He is probably sane enough no way he will.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, bkk6060 said:

If he wants to destroy his country, kill many people in his country and ruin the world, go for it.

He is probably sane enough no way he will.

I agree with you, that Putin does not want to use nuclear weapons. He is not insane. The problem is the Russian war mongers behind him that are pushing him. If Putin isn't there then it's a whole different ball game.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Agree 1
Posted

poking the bear... ww3 worth it?  not enough problems in USA?  hope first thing trump does, is to stop all the waste of tax payer... military industrial complex and crooked politicians are getting filthy rich, as usual

  • Sad 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

Putin's Nuclear Threats: Rhetoric or Reality?

 

1000% Bull*hit; bluff.

As Poo-tin  well knows its Consequences.

One nuke bang in any part of Ukraine.

And it will be the Beginning of The End to himself...

Whatever that dictator is mad blockhead, still can predict  What Will Happen after that.

 

Looks pretty similar to the case of  N/Korea.

Often firing missiles into Japan Sea as a meaning of extortion; begging food aid in provocative manner.

But never hit the inhabited area of the neighboring country behind the sea.

Japan: Under permanent US military occupation after the end of WW2(so many of their military installations from the north to the south).

Attacking such an area, means Declaration of War on USA they can never beat...

 

 

Posted
7 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

No it won't. Putin can unleash a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, but the US cannot reply against Russia, If they did it would be the end of the US.

 

Putin knows this, and no doubt is more and more tempted to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

 

NATO would not even need  to resort to the nuke in the first place.

As they are capable of annihilating Russian force in Ukraine by their far superior airpower with conventional ordinances alone.

 

I never insist this groundlessly:

 

NATO Russia military comparison 2024 | Statista

 

Unlike Russia, NATO troops and their armament can be deployed with a Moment Notice as they are a lot better maintained all the time.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, black tabby12345 said:

 

NATO would not even need  to resort to the nuke in the first place.

As they are capable of annihilating Russian force in Ukraine by their far superior airpower with conventional ordinances alone.

 

I never insist this groundlessly:

 

NATO Russia military comparison 2024 | Statista

 

Unlike Russia, NATO troops and their armament can be deployed with a Moment Notice as they are a lot better maintained all the time.

 

That is certainly more likely than nuclear response by the US.

 

However, if the US were to do a repeat of the bombings of the Serbians, we should remember in that campaign it took NATO 10,000 plus sorties to make any impact on the conflict.  And Serbia does not have the airfoce Russia has. In addition such a conventional warfare response would certianly be a hot war and escalation into a nuclear conflict would always be a possibillity. I strongly suspect both parties would negotiate before risking mutual nuclear annihiliation.

  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, farangkinok said:

everyone knows that there are Western advisors and mercenaries  embedded with the Ukrainian forces fighting against the Russian forces.

There are no Western Advisors embedded with the Ukrainian Forces, ("Everyone knows" is, incidentally, not conclusive evidence of anything). The Ukrainian forces have benefitted significantly from training from Western armies outside the Ukraine, not least because even an abbreviated training regime gives them an edge on their Russian opponents, who are basically untrained, and rely on "learning on the job"!

 

Mercenaries? Well there are foreign volunteers serving in the Ukraine forces, but there are plenty of Chechens and other central Asian "volunteers" in the Russian Ranks.

 

Ukraine is using weapons supplied by Western countries, Russia is using weapons (and particularly artillery ammunition) from China and North Korea.

 

Russia rains long range missiles on the civilian infrastructure of Ukraine - one of their main objectives of late has been to destroy the electrical generating and distribution network to ensure that winter will be especially hard for civilians - any Ukrainian response is of course mendacious, brutal and a threat by NATO!

 

The Ukraine was for a long time controlled by the Russian Empire, Czarist or Soviet. It was never a comfortable occupation, Ukraine was often rebellious. Arguably one of the great mistakes of Nazi Germany in their invasion of the Soviet Union was to fail to turn Ukraine to their side instead the Nazis stupidly went for racial oppression and genocide.

 

Ukraine does, and has for generations, looked to Europe and not Moscow.

 

 

 

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
On 10/7/2024 at 8:11 AM, bkk6060 said:

If he wants to destroy his country, kill many people in his country and ruin the world, go for it.

He is probably sane enough no way he will.

 

Posted

Are we sure they're real?

AFAICT no living person has ever seen a nuke or a long range missile go off (last ones were alledgedly back in 19 bleedin' 45) which is very odd.

 

Idk if questioning them is allowed but if it is this it's worth considering:

 

 

 

 

  • Sad 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
On 10/7/2024 at 3:31 AM, Social Media said:

Vladimir Putin’s recent remarks on Russia’s nuclear doctrine have raised alarms, suggesting a potential shift in how Moscow might use its atomic arsenal.

He's just trying to frighten the west - and it works.

At the moment, Putin has everything. Power, money, total control - everything.

If he starts a nuclear war, he will have none of those things. He will be a lonely old nobody, sitting in his bunker until he dies.

  • Confused 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
On 10/7/2024 at 7:20 AM, mfd101 said:

Nothing would get Putin out of Ukraine faster than US troops arriving.

i doubt it, yanks couldn't beat a load of blokes in caves for 20yrs, 

  • Haha 1
Posted
 

 

 

You've never seen a nuke or a 'long range' missile.

Both just more boomer BS imho.

If you have evidence though (apart from 'I sAw iT oN dA tV') bring it...

Won't hold my breath though : )

FACT CHECKED FAKE?

 

  • Confused 1

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...