Posted on 03/22/2022 5:32:04 PM PDT by Conservat1
That is not remotely what they are saying.
Unlike NKorea who rattles sabres every so often to get a bribe to stop, Russia’s statement is direct and simple..
Russia cannot win a conventional war against
NATO, or the US and knows it.. this statement is very simple, direct and clear..
Any of you get involved directly, we will not hesitate to go nuclear, most likely tactical in retaliation.
You think if NATO or The US gets involved, it will just be a liberation if UKraine war? Or be perceived as such by Russia?
How did that work out with Gulf War I?
Unlike the walking vegetable we have in the White House, Putin actually understands what’s going on around him.
Honestly , the only war worth fighting is to take out Russia, not push them out of UKraine only to go back again in 10 or 20 years, no one is willing to do that but if a hot war is to happen involving nato and/or the US, anything short of removing Russia as a military threat to anyone is wasted blood.
There is little doubt in my mind, Russia would not hesitate to use tactical nuclear weapons, if this war expands. They will still eventually lose, but the cost will be insane.
This idiotic world view presented by some here, that Putin is the stumble bum, rather than a ruthless individual.. and somehow the US, that actually has a stumble bum at the helm and even dumber puppet masters around him, won’t make a bigger mess of things is comical.
If this war expands and the US directly or NATO become active participants, Russia will not perceive that as simply looking to push the out of UKraine abs return to the status quo before the invasion. Putin views just the treat of NATO troops possibly being in UKraine by it being a member enough of an existential threat to Russia that he invaded… but if NATO Troops are actually on the ground in UKraine fighting against him he will not view that as an existential threat ?
Failure to see what your opponent sees, whether correct or not, is the surest way to eff everything to hell.. and it is beyond clear that from Putin’s perspective any direct involvement by an outside player NATO or the US will be perceived as an existential threat by him.
If we are going to get involved we better understand, we have to be committed to making removing the entire Russian ability to be a threat has to be the goal, even if the stated intent of that first action is something less, you better be fully prepared for all our wAr, to remove Russia as a viable threat to anyone… because that is exactly how they will respond to any first action.. and at that point you are in it all the way whether you wanted to be or not.
Russia is not Iraq.. Russia is not Afghanistan… Russia has the capacity and resolve to kill millions. Do not think otherwise. They may lose the war in the end, but if you think they are going to show restraint if backed into a corner, you have bought way too much of the bs the MSM has been selling you.
Russia may stay away from ICBMs, but I have no doubt under right circumstances they will not hesitate to target tactical nukes at military and civilian targets
Who the eff suggested NATO was getting involved?
Not me.
White Toyota’s were a thing...
“Russia is not going to be faced with an existential threat.”
The Russian leadership will define what an existential threat is. No one else.
The good profession gives you historical reasons why this tempest has brewing for a long time and Russia is just responding to West intrusion in their space....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6mw9U62ZJU
The good professor gives you historical reasons why this tempest has brewing for a long time and Russia is just responding to West intrusion in their space....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6mw9U62ZJU
So, then is saying we (Russia) would use nukes against an “existential threat” actually a downgrade? Because defeating Russian troops in Ukraine and stopping there is NOT an existential threat - at least not a military existential threat - to Russia. It might be an existential threat to Putin, from his own cadre, but not Russia. Hmmm...
Tell the communist big mouths to stop their BS and use nukes.
They’ll see first hand what happens. Joe will surrender.
The “existential threat” to Russia is Russia itself.
BLUSTER!
Nuclear missile rattling (Nucular as W used to say it)
I recall gaming out the “2010” policy, as well as what is discussed here, right after 2010, and later in 2018
🇺🇸 Trump was interested in various counter strategies to CIS tactical nuclear first strike. This was actually hot under Bush 43, due to Putin heavily rearming Kaliningrad, and violating aspects of every treaty signed. Then ignored under the real Putin puppet, and the topic of significant time spent by Trump.
*Yes, Putin has doctrinally “green lighted” first strike tactical nukes, and not triggered by “existential threat”.
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2020/06/23/putins_new_nuclear_doctrine_115405.html
In June 2020, Russian President Vladimir Putin issued an edict on “On the foundations of state policy in the field of nuclear deterrence.”[1] This is a first because the previous versions of this document were classified[2] and previous unclassified Russian written doctrinal pronouncements on nuclear weapons use at the Presidential level were part of longer documents on military doctrine. Notwithstanding the significance of Putin’s new edict, there are major inconsistencies in the new document. Moreover, Putin is making unprecedented (for a doctrinal document) nuclear first use threats while simultaneously denying Russia’s policy provides for such a course of action.
Putin’s decree represents a major, but incomplete, victory for the hardline faction in the Russian military who support the first use of nuclear weapons and want to talk about it in public. Major General (ret) Vladimir Dvorkin commented that the purpose of the edict was to “…force him [President Trump] to agree to the extension of the 2012 New START treaty.”[3] While there is no logical reason nuclear threats should “force” a U.S. President to extend a seriously flawed arms control treaty, the Russian default mode is if Russia does not like what is going on in the world, it resorts to making nuclear threats. Still, while it is unusual for Russia to combine doctrinal statements and nuclear targeting threats, it is not unprecedented. In July 2014, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made a nuclear threat relating to Crimea by referencing Russia’s nuclear doctrine.[4] Ironically, the unclassified 2010 version of the Russian nuclear doctrine (in effect until Putin’s June 2020 decree) would not apparently apply to Crimea since the loss of Crimea, which was not Russian territory to begin with, would hardly destroy the Russian state, which was supposedly the basis of their announced policy. The reason was that Russia’s 2010 pronouncement on nuclear weapons first use, which was presented as a new limitation on first use, was a deception. Even at the time, it was announced (February 2010), Colonel General Sergei Ivanov, then-Deputy Prime Minister and formerly Defense Minister, said, “In terms of hypothetical use of nuclear weapons by Russia, the new Military Doctrine does not differ from the one that was signed in 2000.”[5] Indeed, in February 2015, Ilya Kramnik, the long-time military correspondent for an official Russian news agency RIA Novosti, wrote that the 2010 revision of Russia’s military doctrine “further lowered” the threshold of “combat use” of nuclear weapons.[6]
According to Olga Oliker, Program Director, Europe and Central Asia, Crisis Group, Brussels, we are supposed to “rejoice” over Putin’s new edict because before this it was necessary to “…piece together Moscow’s positions and intentions from components of other documents (most notably a line or two in the country’s military doctrine statements from officials, exercises, force structure and the writings of Russia’s own specialists and strategists…)”[7] While I see no reason to rejoice over the Putin decree, Ms. Oliker is correct insofar that it was necessary to piece together Russian nuclear strategy from these sources, however, it is rather amazing that she omits statements by senior U.S. civilian and military leaders, intelligence officials, the content of official reports and declassified intelligence reports on nuclear first use from her list of sources. The problem is that for two decades, Minimum Deterrence advocates and their apologists in the “expert” community for Russian nuclear first use policy ignored almost all of these sources. The only good news in Putin’s decree is that it is now more difficult for Russia’s apologists to continue to ignore the fact that Russia plans on nuclear weapons first use in circumstances that no Western leader would even consider using them. However, they will certainly try.
BREAKING: Putin’s Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov says Russia would use nuclear weapons if faced with "existential" threat.
International Court of Justice, 1996.
https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/95
Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, [1996] ICJ Rep.
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS, ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS
LEGALITY OF THE THREAT OR USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
ADVISORY OPINION OF 8 JULY 1996
At pp. 262-263: [emphasis added]
95. Nor can the Court make a determination on the validity of the view that the recourse to nuclear weapons would be illegal in any circumstance owing to their inherent and total incompatibility with the law applicable in armed conflict. Certainly, as the Court has already indicated, the principles and rules of law applicable in armed conflict — at the heart of which is the overriding consideration of humanity — make the conduct of armed hostilities subject to a number of strict requirements. Thus, methods and means of warfare, which would preclude any distinction between civilian and military targets, or which would result in unnecessary suffering to combatants, are prohibited. In view of the unique characteristics of nuclear weapons, to which the Court has referred above, the use of such weapons in fact seems scarcely reconcilable with respect for such requirements. Nevertheless, the Court considers that it does not have sufficient elements to enable it to conclude with certainty that the use of nuclear weapons would necessarily be at variance with the principles and rules of law applicable in armed conflict in any circumstance.96. Furthermore, the Court cannot lose sight of the fundamental right of every State to survival, and thus its right to resort to self-defence, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter, when its survival is at stake.
Nor can it ignore the practice referred to as "policy of deterrence", to which an appreciable section of the international community adhered for many years. The Court also notes the reservations which certain nuclear-weapon States have appended to the undertakings they have given, notably under the Protocols to the Treaties of Tlatelolco and Rarotonga, and also under the declarations made by them in connection with the extension of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, not to resort to such weapons.
97. Accordingly, in view of the present state of international law viewed as a whole, as examined above by the Court, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court is led to observe that it cannot reach a definitive conclusion as to the legality or illegality of the use of nuclear weapons by a State in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which its very survival would be at stake.
the Court is led to observe that it cannot reach a definitive conclusion as to the legality or illegality of the use of nuclear weapons by a State in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which its very survival would be at stake.
***So when the Ukes build their nukes and deploy them on the Rukes, it’ll be ... acceptable.
So when the Ukes build their nukes and deploy them on the Rukes, it’ll be ... acceptable.
The Ukes have no nukes, but when they make them next door to Russia it will likely be breaking news.
It might take them a while just to build back better.
The ukes are in an existential war.
The ukes had nukes in 1994.
The ukes gave up their nukes. The Rukes signed off on it, so did the US. The rukes violated that Budapest Agreement, now the US is trying hard to abrogate it.
The ukes have 15 nuke power plants. They had Chernobyl. They have fissionable material. They have the knowledge.
Now they have the motivation. To build nukes.
It took the A-Bomb kid a few months to design his nuke in his dorm room at school as a 3rd year physics student. https://www.amazon.com/Mushroom-bomb-John-Aristotle-Phillips/dp/0688033512
The ukes could probably do it in half that time.
When we were in an existential war, we dropped our nukes. Who are we to scorn them for doing the same thing — even the rukes say they’d do it under those conditions — especially when we were the ones who betrayed them?
The ukes had nukes in 1994.
The Ukes had Russian nukes.
Now they have huge mounds of rubble instead of cities.
They have Russia next door. It seems Russia objects to their saber rattling about joining NATO. Good luck with that bomb making plan. And designing a nuclear bomb is not making a nuclear bomb. The kid could not go to the hardware store and get the parts. It seems difficult to build one of those things and keep it a secret.
The Ukes had fifteen nuclear power plants. It seems some of those are under new management.
We were not in an existential war. We were not threatened with extinction at the end of WW2. We would have had to lose a lot of troops to fight it to a finish. We dropped nukes on cities and ended the war. As Patton said, nobody wins a war by dying for his country, wars are won but making the other dumb bastard die for his country.
Since we stopped being the sole nuclear power, there was been a recognition of mutual assured destruction (MAD) if there be one.
The idea that the Ukes would nuke Russia might make Russia object to them having nukes.
We have never had any obligation to go to war for Ukraine. Even Ukraine has admitted that. The Budapest Memorandum is a Memorandum, not a Treaty. There is no military obligation even spoken about.
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
There's a memorandum worth its weight in paper. It commits to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine. Sounds like a plan. You never know though. Somebody might veto the idea.
“The Russian leadership will define what an existential threat is. No one else.”
Good point but I don’t see the conflict extending beyond Ukraine, and I don’t see the rest of the world doing much more than they’re doing now to oppose Russia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.