Russian television host Vladimir Solovyov claimed in a sensational broadcast that Putin could use nuclear weapons 'wisely' on French and British troops deployed to Ukraine.

 

** From a reputable UK news outlet, where would the USA stand then? (provide Putin with more)

Is that the same chap who several years ago threatened to set off a nuclear mine in the Atlantic which would cause a tsunami which would drown Ireland, Great Britain and our "moss covered Queen". Quite an imagination.

The Russians could of course annihilate the UK in the blink of an eye.

 

Starmer, Johnson and all the other idiots should start to watch their big mouths.

12 hours ago, Cameroni said:

The Russians could of course annihilate the UK in the blink of an eye.

 

Starmer, Johnson and all the other idiots should start to watch their big mouths.

 

But Russia wouldn't do that of course as they are led by the peaceful democrat, Mr. Putin, who is careful not to impinge on the sovereignty, or show any aggression towards other nations.

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

But Russia wouldn't do that of course as they are led by the peaceful democrat, Mr. Putin, who is careful not to impinge on the sovereignty, or show any aggression towards other nations.

 

No, he wouldn't do it, because there's no point. And besides Russia's economy is just larger than Spain. It would be idiotic. One thing Putin is not, is an idiot. Russia does not want war with the West, and never did. But, if the Europeans mistake delusions of grandeur for real power, then that could get dangerous.

6 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

No, he wouldn't do it, because there's no point. And besides Russia's economy is just larger than Spain. It would be idiotic. One thing Putin is not, is an idiot. Russia does not want war with the West, and never did. But, if the Europeans mistake delusions of grandeur for real power, then that could get dangerous.

 

And therein lies the problem. Russia's economy has been in relative decline this century. Ukraine's desire to turn away from Moscow and throw in its' economic lot with the West - in the guise of the EU - was the final straw for Putin, hence the invasion.

 

The Europeans are not the only ones with delusions of grandeur. Russia is a fading power with limited influence on the world stage, a fact that Putin apparently seems unable to accept.

 

Perhaps Russia has no desire for war with The West, but her actions show that she is prepared to risk it.

3 hours ago, RayC said:

 

And therein lies the problem. Russia's economy has been in relative decline this century. Ukraine's desire to turn away from Moscow and throw in its' economic lot with the West - in the guise of the EU - was the final straw for Putin, hence the invasion.

 

The Europeans are not the only ones with delusions of grandeur. Russia is a fading power with limited influence on the world stage, a fact that Putin apparently seems unable to accept.

 

Perhaps Russia has no desire for war with The West, but her actions show that she is prepared to risk it.

 

I partly agree with this, because indeed Ukraine jilting her boyfriend and opening her legs for the West of course had economic reasons.

 

Nevertheless, Russia HAS real power, in fact enough nuclear power to destroy the whole planet many times over, let alone the UK or France. Now is its power fading, sure, but it is still the case that any war with Russia would be disastrous for the UK or France. I don't even mention Germany because Poland could probably take them now.

2 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

 

Nevertheless, Russia HAS real power, in fact enough nuclear power to destroy the whole planet many times over.

I assume you have a 1950 's bunker ready ....otherwise why bring the subject up ,?

Putin, like all dictators, relies on fear and supression... and only respects strength. There is nothing to fear from conventional warefare with Russia, they can't even take Ukraine (and that's with no NATO soldiers fighting), and in conventional conflict with NATO, Russia would be ripped a new one, especially from the airpower. 

Ivan won't go nuclear unless it is attacked with nukes, which won't happen, and if he did a first strike, then it would be the end of Putin's Russia. The thing with nukes is that you can't just use one or two, you have to use hundreds to properly take out, say, the UK and France because otherwise the retaliation strike would destroy many Russian cities. The thing is, Ivan might have 5-6k nukes on paper, but how many actually work and are ready to be deployed... probably some, but not all of them and the cost of maintaining them is sky-high when you look at what the uS spends on this, and when you consider the scale of corruption in the Russian armed forces, who's to say that that doesn't happen in the nulear forces too (especially when so many generals probably think that their strength is in just having them as a deterrent, not using them, and don't think they will be used ever). The US has about 1,500 nukes ready or ready-ish to go from a pile of 5k, and the rest would take a bit of work to get up to snuff so that they could be used. I suspect the Russians have far less ready to go and it's all bluster, as is so often the case with the Kremlin... just threats.

Don't believe the Russian propaganda or the scaremongering of the mainstream media... it's called brinkmanship, and they all want you living in fear.

On 4/6/2025 at 8:45 AM, PomPolo said:

From a reputable UK news outlet

 

Jolly Joker! 

 

But April 1st was LAST week!

On 4/6/2025 at 3:27 AM, Cameroni said:

The Russians could of course annihilate the UK in the blink of an eye.

 

Starmer, Johnson and all the other idiots should start to watch their big mouths.

 

 

They could do the same in Alaska if they wanted. Russia wants Alaska back., Supporters of Russian Nazis ought to watch their big mouths.

40 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

van won't go nuclear unless it is attacked with nukes,

 

Of course that's not the case. Russia has specifically amended its nuclear doctrine and made clear that if the Russian motherland is endangered it will be justified to use nukes.

 

So even if the conflict started out as conventional, if Russia would find it is losing and its territory is endangered, of course it would use nuclear weapons - against a NON-nuclear nation like Ukraine say or Germany.

 

42 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Ivan might have 5-6k nukes on paper, but how many actually work and are ready to be deployed

 

Great idea, let's find out. Maybe they only have 1000 operational and we'll get lucky.

 

I mean you have to sratch your head at the thinking of some people really.

39 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Putin, like all dictators, relies on fear and supression... and only respects strength. There is nothing to fear from conventional warefare with Russia, they can't even take Ukraine (and that's with no NATO soldiers fighting), and in conventional conflict with NATO, Russia would be ripped a new one, especially from the airpower. 

Ivan won't go nuclear unless it is attacked with nukes, which won't happen, and if he did a first strike, then it would be the end of Putin's Russia. The thing with nukes is that you can't just use one or two, you have to use hundreds to properly take out, say, the UK and France because otherwise the retaliation strike would destroy many Russian cities. The thing is, Ivan might have 5-6k nukes on paper, but how many actually work and are ready to be deployed... probably some, but not all of them and the cost of maintaining them is sky-high when you look at what the uS spends on this, and when you consider the scale of corruption in the Russian armed forces, who's to say that that doesn't happen in the nulear forces too (especially when so many generals probably think that their strength is in just having them as a deterrent, not using them, and don't think they will be used ever). The US has about 1,500 nukes ready or ready-ish to go from a pile of 5k, and the rest would take a bit of work to get up to snuff so that they could be used. I suspect the Russians have far less ready to go and it's all bluster, as is so often the case with the Kremlin... just threats.

Don't believe the Russian propaganda or the scaremongering of the mainstream media... it's called brinkmanship, and they all want you living in fear.

 

 

And Putin doesn't know what is in the Letters of Last Resort on the Vanguard subs state.

 

They might read:

 

1. The balloons gone up lads, head to Australia, wait it out

2. Head to Norfolk, Virginia, place yourself under US Navy command for the expected fight back.

3. Here are the coordinates for Vlad's homes.  Hit 'em all.

4. Eff them all, burn the world with what you got. Here are the coordinates for the Kremlin, Whitehouse etc.

5. Your wives and kids are all dead. The late Prime Minister and his similarly deceased Sovereign posthumously leave it to your judgement how to react. Si vis pacem, para bellum. We Come Unseen.

47 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Putin, like all dictators, relies on fear and supression... and only respects strength. There is nothing to fear from conventional warefare with Russia, they can't even take Ukraine (and that's with no NATO soldiers fighting), and in conventional conflict with NATO, Russia would be ripped a new one, especially from the airpower. 

Ivan won't go nuclear unless it is attacked with nukes, which won't happen, and if he did a first strike, then it would be the end of Putin's Russia. The thing with nukes is that you can't just use one or two, you have to use hundreds to properly take out, say, the UK and France because otherwise the retaliation strike would destroy many Russian cities. The thing is, Ivan might have 5-6k nukes on paper, but how many actually work and are ready to be deployed... probably some, but not all of them and the cost of maintaining them is sky-high when you look at what the uS spends on this, and when you consider the scale of corruption in the Russian armed forces, who's to say that that doesn't happen in the nulear forces too (especially when so many generals probably think that their strength is in just having them as a deterrent, not using them, and don't think they will be used ever). The US has about 1,500 nukes ready or ready-ish to go from a pile of 5k, and the rest would take a bit of work to get up to snuff so that they could be used. I suspect the Russians have far less ready to go and it's all bluster, as is so often the case with the Kremlin... just threats.

Don't believe the Russian propaganda or the scaremongering of the mainstream media... it's called brinkmanship, and they all want you living in fear.

Exactly! 50% of the nukes would probably be so bad they explode at take-off.

2 hours ago, Jim Blue said:

I assume you have a 1950 's bunker ready ....otherwise why bring the subject up ,?

 

He seems to be a mouthpiece and apologist for Moscow.

On 4/6/2025 at 9:27 AM, Cameroni said:

The Russians could of course annihilate the UK in the blink of an eye.

 

Starmer, Johnson and all the other idiots should start to watch their big mouths.

He can also annihilate the US so would you suggest Trump do the same thing?

On 4/6/2025 at 8:45 AM, PomPolo said:

Russian television host Vladimir Solovyov claimed in a sensational broadcast that Putin could use nuclear weapons 'wisely' on French and British troops deployed to Ukraine.

 

** From a reputable UK news outlet, where would the USA stand then? (provide Putin with more)

 

I support Ukraine, although I believe US material, money, and supplies should almost all be going to the Far East. But here is what I don't like. Europe expects the US to support them against Russia. But the French, Germans, and British have already said they "don't want to be dragged into a US conflict with China" and, in fact are pursuing trade deals with China? Why is this always a one-way street? If allies are really allies, it doesn't mean they cut a deal with each other's primary enemy. Trump, to his shame, is doing that with Russia. But Europe has been doing so with China for years and years, with no sign of ever intending to inconvenience themselves at all.

19 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

He can also annihilate the US so would you suggest Trump do the same thing?

 

When you address me, you have to be specific, you need to use words to precisely articulate what you are asking.

 

I don't even know what you are asking.

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

When you address me, you have to be specific, you need to use words to precisely articulate what you are asking.

 

I don't even know what you are asking.

I see. My apologies, I didn't know you were that slow. Let's try again.

 

You wrote:

"The Russians could of course annihilate the UK in the blink of an eye.

Starmer, Johnson and all the other idiots should start to watch their big mouths."

 

I then pointed out that Putin also has enough nukes to annihilate the US of A so I asked you if you would suggest that Trump should start to watch his big mouth too?

Was that clear enough for you?

 

 

1 hour ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Jolly Joker! 

 

But April 1st was LAST week!

But the Daily Mirror in the UK I have been informed is a top class paper to find world news delivered fairly and non-biased 🤣

4 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

I then pointed out that Putin also has enough nukes to annihilate the US of A so I asked you if you would suggest that Trump should start to watch his big mouth too?

Was that clear enough for you?

 

Thank you, I understand what you are actually asking now.

 

My answer is "Yes", Trump has to be careful not to unleash war with Russia, but since he's not an idiot I doubt we need to worry about that.

 

 

According to Forbes' latest list of the wealthiest billionaires, 24 Russians have ditched the Russian flag and instead presented as citizens of other European and Asian nations. In total, the Russian billionaires took a combined $110billion (£85billion) in wealth out of the country. Kyrylo Shevchenko, former Chief of the National Bank of Ukraine, highlighted this on X.

16 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

No, he wouldn't do it, because there's no point. And besides Russia's economy is just larger than Spain. It would be idiotic. One thing Putin is not, is an idiot. Russia does not want war with the West, and never did. But, if the Europeans mistake delusions of grandeur for real power, then that could get dangerous.

You throw these figures out like they are a fact. It depends on who is making the calculations.

 

Here's a different way of calculating the size of nations' economies:

 

https://www.worldeconomics.com/GDP/Russia.aspx

 

2 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

You throw these figures out like they are a fact. It depends on who is making the calculations.

 

Here's a different way of calculating the size of nations' economies:

 

https://www.worldeconomics.com/GDP/Russia.aspx

 

 

 

I said Russia's economy is just about larger than Spain's.

 

This is correct, as you can see here:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I said Russia's economy is just about larger than Spain's.

 

This is correct, as you can see here:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Did you not read my post? I've seen your list, of course - who hasn't? I said it depends on who is making the calculations.

 

As you didn't look at the link I provided, I will quote the main information about how they calculate the GDP and why:

 

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

World Economics estimates Russia's 2024 GDP at $7.582 trillion in PPP terms (Purchasing Power Parity) and an initial estimate of $7.688 trillion for 2025. This figure is 26% higher than the official estimate published by the World Bank.

 

World Economics' methodology incorporates crucial factors often overlooked in official estimates, such as:

 

The size of the informal economy: It is estimated that 26% of Russia's economic activity occurs outside the formal sector.

 

Outdated GDP base year data: Many countries use outdated base years for their GDP calculations, leading to an underestimation of economic growth. Russia uses a chain-weighted GDP base year.

 

By adjusting for these factors where required, World Economics provides a more accurate picture of Russia's true economic size and potential.

For reference, offical data reported Russia's GDP as $1.582 trillion in 2015 constant prices and $2.098 trillion in current prices for 2024.

 

 

Germany is talking about withdrawing its gold reserve from New York.

I sense some concerns.

1 hour ago, John Drake said:

 

I support Ukraine, although I believe US material, money, and supplies should almost all be going to the Far East. But here is what I don't like. Europe expects the US to support them against Russia. But the French, Germans, and British have already said they "don't want to be dragged into a US conflict with China" and, in fact are pursuing trade deals with China? Why is this always a one-way street? If allies are really allies, it doesn't mean they cut a deal with each other's primary enemy. Trump, to his shame, is doing that with Russia. But Europe has been doing so with China for years and years, with no sign of ever intending to inconvenience themselves at all.

Article 5 has been invoked exactly once. Guess who came to the aid of who.

1 hour ago, BLMFem said:

He can also annihilate the US so would you suggest Trump do the same thing?

 

Trump doesn't need nukes to destroy the US.

Just now, NoDisplayName said:

 

Trump doesn't need nukes to destroy the US.

That is undoubtedly true.

39 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Trump doesn't need nukes to destroy the US.

For once he is doing a perfect job of destroying the US and alienating the rest of the world at the same time, sadly.