Top Putin ally taunts Keir Starmer and King Charles- threatening Brits with 'tactical nukes'

[RayC]

4 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

 

Russia's power - such as it is - lies in the fact that it possesses a nuclear arsenal. That has been the case for 60+ years. However, France and the UK are also nuclear powers - albeit with smaller arsenals than Russia - both of whom currently have enough weaponry to wipe out Moscow and St. Petersburg.

 

Therefore, unless Putin is mad - and I agree with you, I don't think that he is -  the threat of MAD does little more than maintain an equilibrium in Europe; it doesn't offer much of an advantage for Russia in a negotiation/ conflict.

[PomPolo]

 

[Cameroni]

20 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Russia's power - such as it is - lies in the fact that it possesses a nuclear arsenal. That has been the case for 60+ years. However, France and the UK are also nuclear powers - albeit with smaller arsenals than Russia - both of whom currently have enough weaponry to wipe out Moscow and St. Petersburg.

 

Therefore, unless Putin is mad - and I agree with you, I don't think that he is -  the threat of MAD does little more than maintain an equilibrium in Europe; it doesn't offer much of an advantage for Russia in a negotiation/ conflict.

 

I agree that Russia would be very reticient to use nuclear weapons, especially against another nuclear power.

 

However, if Russia's national sovereignty and territorial integrity is threatened it may well use those weapons as a last resort.

[RayC]

19 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I agree that Russia would be very reticient to use nuclear weapons, especially against another nuclear power.

 

However, if Russia's national sovereignty and territorial integrity is threatened it may well use those weapons as a last resort.

 

On that basis, Europe shouldn't have had anything to worry about in the past decade, as Russia was not being threatened with invasion and she was free to pursue her own (domestic) economic policies.

 

Unfortunately, events since 2014 have proven otherwise.

[rough diamond]

24 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I agree that Russia would be very reticient to use nuclear weapons, especially against another nuclear power.

 

However, if Russia's national sovereignty and territorial integrity is threatened it may well use those weapons as a last resort.

Is that what you want?

If not why the post?

[Mike_Hunt]

4 hours ago, BLMFem said:

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

I'd be in favor of Russia dropping a nuke on your head. 

[Mike_Hunt]

Russia is a good state; it's time to put it out of their misery.   

[edwinchester]

4 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

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.

 

 

Trump not an idiot! Haha that's a good one. Now I know you're not to be taken seriously.

[BLMFem]

13 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

I'd be in favor of Russia dropping a nuke on your head. 

Why?

[Cameroni]

29 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

On that basis, Europe shouldn't have had anything to worry about in the past decade, as Russia was not being threatened with invasion and she was free to pursue her own (domestic) economic policies.

 

Unfortunately, events since 2014 have proven otherwise.

 

Only in relation to nuclear war. However, as has been well documented the West has lied to Russia and made her defensive position a lot worse by incorporating a number of Eastern European countries into NATO or threatening to do so.

 

What happened to Georgia and Ukraine was due to the actions of those countries and the actions of the West.

[jayboy]

5 hours ago, Cameroni said:

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

 

Including people like yourself who don't understand the basis of a nuclear deterrent - mutually assured destruction. A Russian nuclear attack on a major UK city would at very least result in the incineration of Moscow or St Petersburg.The whole point of nuclear weapons is to deter.

[RayC]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

Only in relation to nuclear war. However, as has been well documented the West has lied to Russia and made her defensive position a lot worse by incorporating a number of Eastern European countries into NATO or threatening to do so.

 

What happened to Georgia and Ukraine was due to the actions of those countries and the actions of the West.

 

Upon becoming independent, sovereign countries one of the first acts by most of the former Warsaw Pact countries was to apply for membership of NATO (and the EU). They did this of their volition. They were not forced into doing so by the West. 

 

What has happened in Ukraine and Georgia is down to Russia being unable to accept that her former satellite states see their future being secured - both economically and militarily - from Brussels rather than Moscow.

 

When you boil it all down, it is as simple as that.

[Mike_Hunt]

24 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Why?

 

You're a dumb leftie.  

[Mike_Hunt]

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Upon becoming independent, sovereign countries one of the first acts by most of the former Warsaw Pact countries was to apply for membership of NATO (and the EU). They did this of their volition. They were not forced into doing so by the West. 

 

What has happened in Ukraine and Georgia is down to Russia being unable to accept that her former satellite states see their future being secured - both economically and militarily - from Brussels rather than Moscow.

 

When you boil it all down, it is as simple as that.

Spot on; they want nothing to do with Russia, and Putin can't accept that. 

[BLMFem]

4 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

 

You're a dumb leftie.  

Stop flirting, honey.

[BLMFem]

28 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Only in relation to nuclear war. However, as has been well documented the West has lied to Russia and made her defensive position a lot worse by incorporating a number of Eastern European countries into NATO or threatening to do so.

 

What happened to Georgia and Ukraine was due to the actions of those countries and the actions of the West.

Oh great, another "useful person" parroting the drivel sprouted by Moscow.

[Cameroni]

39 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Upon becoming independent, sovereign countries one of the first acts by most of the former Warsaw Pact countries was to apply for membership of NATO (and the EU). They did this of their volition. They were not forced into doing so by the West. 

 

What has happened in Ukraine and Georgia is down to Russia being unable to accept that her former satellite states see their future being secured - both economically and militarily - from Brussels rather than Moscow.

 

When you boil it all down, it is as simple as that.

 

So much the worse, countries need to consider their own security. If you're a neighbour of Russia you can't poke her in the eye with a pointy stick incessantly.

 

Well, yes, but why did Ukraine and Georgia think they can switch alliances from Russia to the West in the first place? Therein lies the error. Both paid a heavy prize and were unable to realise their ambition. Very foolish.

[IsaanT]

11 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Nevertheless, Russia HAS real power, in fact enough nuclear power to destroy the whole planet many times over, let alone the UK or France.

Do you think Russia's nuclear arsenal still work...?

The Russians haven't maintained their war assets over recent years.  The chances that parts have been stripped over the years for scrap sales by enterprising locals is not out of the question.  I wouldn't be surprised if they fizzled out and did nothing if they lit the blue touch paper.  Hopefully, we'll never need to find out.
 

[Mike_Hunt]

43 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Stop flirting, honey.

Post your number. 

[BLMFem]

9 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

Post your number. 

I bet you asking for my number is the most action you've had all year, am I right?

 

BTW, it's 12".

[cjinchiangrai]

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.

And the UK could also do a lot of damage to Russia as well. Putin would not survive.

[Cameroni]

33 minutes ago, IsaanT said:

Do you think Russia's nuclear arsenal still work...?

The Russians haven't maintained their war assets over recent years.  The chances that parts have been stripped over the years for scrap sales by enterprising locals is not out of the question.  I wouldn't be surprised if they fizzled out and did nothing if they lit the blue touch paper.  Hopefully, we'll never need to find out.
 

On the day of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Anton says the nuclear weapons base he was serving at was put on full combat alert.

“Before that, we had only exercises. But on the day the war started, the weapons were fully in place,” says the former officer in the Russian nuclear forces. “We were ready to launch the forces into the sea and air and, in theory, carry out a nuclear strike.”

 

Some Western experts have suggested its weapons mostly date from the Soviet era, and might not even work.

The former nuclear forces officer rejected that opinion as a “very simplified view from so-called experts”.

“There might be some old-fashioned types of weapons in some areas, but the country has an enormous nuclear arsenal, a huge amount of warheads, including constant combat patrol on land, sea and air.”

Russia’s nuclear weapons were fully operational and battle-ready, he maintained. “The work to maintain the nuclear weapons is carried out constantly, it never stops even for one minute.”

 

Russia has around 4,380 operational nuclear warheads, according to the Federation of American Scientists, but only 1,700 are “deployed” or ready for use. All the Nato member states combined possess a similar number.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9dl2pv0yj0o

[Jeff the Chef]

I'm not worried about all the rhetoric from either side, I'm more worried about a nuclear accident like Chernobyl or some crazy from either East or West thinking hitting the big red button is a good idea because they will win, thick as pig do-do springs to mind.

[Mike_Hunt]

18 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

 

Russia has around 4,380 operational nuclear warheads, according to the Federation of American Scientists, but only 1,700 are “deployed” or ready for use. All the Nato member states combined possess a similar number.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9dl2pv0yj0o

 

How would the Federation of America Scientists know the operational status of Russian nukes?

[Mike_Hunt]

42 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

I bet you asking for my number is the most action you've had all year, am I right?

 

BTW, it's 12".

 

Your skull thickness?

[Cameroni]

21 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

 

How would the Federation of America Scientists know the operational status of Russian nukes?

 

As it says in that article, there are defectors from the nuclear facilities who provide secret information.