Less Than $869 To Go!!
If You Haven't Donated Yet This Quarter
Please Remember To Help
The FR FReepathon
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Give Russia EU countries.
After all, he has Nukes.
The Putin Doctrine.
Depends on what your definition of “existential threat” is.
I had no choice. You are an existential threat.
Means nothing. Russia is not going to be faced with an existential threat.
If Trump were still in the WH, none of this would be happening. NO ONE messed with The Donald.
Sounds like a signal for the Dhimmis and war Hawks like John Bolt-on to declare a ‘no-fly zone’ over Ukraine.
“Nothing like a good old nuclear war, to show how tough we are!”, say the war hawks.
MARANATHA !
Is Ukraine kicking their asses that badly!?
You know, Pooty, there comes a point where it’s no longer saber rattling it’s whining like a little girl.
Rus culture my Scots-Irish-English azz! Man up, shorty!
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
Tell the communist big mouths to stop their BS and use nukes.
They’ll see first hand what happens. Joe will surrender.
BLUSTER!
Nuclear missile rattling (Nucular as W used to say it)
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.
So would’ve you damned Russkie
So they are going to use nukes on Ukrainian tractors?