Putin and his high command 'are already hunkering in secret bunkers' - -- Russia would use nukes in face of 'existential threat'

FOR MAILONLINE ^ | 29 March 2022 | WILL STEWART

[dennisw]

Flight tracking info suggests Putin may be in a hideaway near Surgut, in Siberia Defence minister Sergei Shoigu is believed to be in a bunker in Ufa, in the Urals Use of bunkers would be alarming as they suggest nuclear option is on the table

New evidence has emerged Vladimir Putin and his highest ranking commanders are running the war in Ukraine from top secret nuclear bunkers.

Movements of planes used by top Kremlin officials show Putin may be in a hideaway near Surgut, in western Siberia, it has been claimed.

His defence minister Sergei Shoigu - who has been mysteriously absent for several weeks, sparking rumours about his health - is believed to be in a bunker near Ufa in the Urals, 725 miles east of Moscow, according to investigative journalist Christo Grozev.

This theory is backed up by his daughter Ksenia Shoigu, 31, visiting Ufa for an estimated three days from March 22, with mounting speculation the defence minister is suffering from heart problems.

She also abruptly barred public access to her Instagram where she had posed with her baby in the blue and yellow colours of Ukraine.

The suspected use of the high security nuclear bunkers is concerning as it leads to suggestions Putin may be prepared to deploy nuclear weapons, a move that would lead to inevitable reprisals.

[higgmeister]

So that is two thousand warheads to spread around.   To borrow a phrase, "do you feel lucky punk?"

[Mr Ramsbotham]

"Now, five, if on the other hand, we were to immediately launch an all out and coordinated attack on all their airfields and missile bases we'd stand a damn good chance of catching 'em with their pants down. Hell, we got a five to one missile superiority as it is. We could easily assign three missiles to every target, and still have a very effective reserve force for any other contingency. Now, six, an unofficial study which we undertook of this eventuality, indicated that we would destroy ninety percent of their nuclear capabilities. We would therefore prevail, and suffer only modest and acceptable civilian casualties from their remaining force which would be badly damaged and uncoordinated."

[Wildbill22]

Well, Puttey was stupid enough to invade Ukraine with last century tech Soviet army, and thought he would win quickly on numerical superiority alone. He obviously thinks he has some sort of superiority on the west, and numerically, tactical nukes, he does.
Is it usable?
Is he an egomaniac who sees himself as a modern Peter The Great?
Is he in a position where, while not “existential” for Russia, as far as using nukes Puttey has put himself in a situation for himself which is existential for himself personally if he fails?

We may be in dangerous times, with a weak leader. Even OBambam said not to underestimate Brandon’s ability to F#@% things up...

[Who is John Galt?]

An absolutely classic movie, that is looking far more realistic than I ever thought it would, given some of the "Let's-Go-To-War-With-Russia-Just-For-Fun!" attitude I'm seeing from way too many people lately...

;>)

[TexasFreeper2009]

*yawn* he wont even carpet bomb the cities in Ukraine, but you think he will use nukes?

LAMO

[BlackbirdSST]

The Daily Smell tabloid propaganda needs to be added to the posting ban list.

[Jumper]

Russian commanders are to be seen with boots on the ground. They go with the advances, and are seen everywhere on the battlefield, except in firefights, as doctrine. It is the same in the 82d Airborne Division where battalion commanders when deployed the LTC becomes COL for combat missions, and the brigade commanders become 1 Stars instead of a COL. Combat leaders rose up thru the ranks and many feel their place is to lead. If you got your leadership course from Colin Powell, he was a platoon leader in Viet Nam, but after that he spent his real formative years as an aide in either the congress or senate beholden to that individual and not IN the Army.

[dljordan]

“I wonder if all those boxes of Saltines from the 1950s are still fresh?”

In the big Civil Defense cans? Those were wheat crackers. Yummy! :(

[Georgia Girl 2]

The anti Russian propaganda is really getting kray kray. 🙄

[higgmeister]

Hint: The Nukes would not be for the Ukraine.   They would be aimed at the Neocon Deepstaters and New World Order ghouls pushing for us to start WWIII.

[cgbg]

The Russian government has fallout shelters modernized and well stocked for civilians.

The US government has no such facilities—civilians are on their own.

That tells you all you need to know about the US government.

[PIF]

This reminds me to go to my fallout shelter t
—
Don’t forget to clean out your air intakes - spider nests, old leaves, the rags your neighbors plugged them up with and so on.

[TexasFreeper2009]

I am sorry that you live your life in constant fear. Relax, we got this!

[higgmeister]

It’s not fear it’s anger!

[Who is John Galt?]

It's tough trying to have a rational conversation with a person who believes that:
1) they know precisely what a foreign head-of-state will do; and
2) they can accurately predict future events; and
3) nuclear war is no big deal.
Back in our grandparents' day, America used to offer free lodging & medical care to people like that, at the local insane asylum...

;>)

[higgmeister]

Relax, we got this!

I looked back a few days and found your comment:

I am not a military person, I have no idea what is possible.

If you have never been in the military, you 've got nothing, let alone this!

I held a Top Secret clearance in the USAF and know things you never will.

Go play with something else besides international relations.

[TexasFreeper2009]

Fear is a choice we all make.

You choose to live your life in constant fear of a nuclear attack from Russia.

I choose not to.

If your fear is true, then Russia blows up the world and we all die, but in the meantime, I live my life happily.

If I am right, you live every day for the rest of your life in fear of something that never happens.

I am fine either way.

Good day.

[higgmeister]

Yes.   There are people that don't know that the Soviets had Civil Defense television programing to teach Soviet masses how to survive nuclear war.   There are people that don't know the Soviets had plans to bury critical heavy equipment and bulldoze mounds of earth over it to allow them to be dug up and used months later after the nuclear weapons have been used.   The Soviets had evacuation drills in big cities to prepare for a nuclear war.   The Russians are much more aware of methods of living through a nuclear war.   That doesn't mean they would succeed in winning a nuclear war, but that isn't the point.   It should indicate to us that the Russians would be much more likely to use nuclear weapons than most suspect.

All we have done for sixty or seventy years is tell a joke about bending over, putting our heads between our legs and kissing ourselves goodbye.

Soviet Civil Defense: Objectives, Pace, and Effectiveness

Having pointed out some of the areas where I believe Part II is inadequate as a policy statement, I , nevertheless, believe that the conclusions it reaches that Soviet civil defense measures can objectively be circumvented in a deterrence sense by periodic adjustments in U.S. targeting plans and that an attempt by the United States to match Soviet civil defense efforts would not be advisable are essentially correct.  However, what is necessary to successfully meet the challenge in the perceptual realm is an open issue deserving much greater attention by both the Congress and the Administration than it has been given to date.

Edward W. Brooke

United States. Congress. Joint Committee on Defense Production · 1977 ·

The Senator seemed only interested in perception.

Civil Preparedness Review: Industrial defense and nuclear attack

[Who is John Galt?]

A lot of younger people have not read much history, and have come to expect American wars to be relatively neat & tidy, with comparatively few American casualties. It's been a long time since a thousand or more US service men died in a single day, but if something unexpected happens in a confrontation with a nuclear armed adversary (like Russia), we could have that many killed in the first 30 seconds. Even if just a few tactical nukes were used (no ICBMs, SLBMs, or strategic bomber force involvement), we could lose 10,000-20,000 Americans killed in action before lunch time - those carrier battle groups make tempting targets. And if things escalated from there, you could be into the 6-7 figure range before dinner, just on the first day.

We got way too close to having an accidental nuclear war in the 1960's, during the Cuban missile crisis (most people seem to have forgotten about that). Accidents can still happen, because people are unpredictable, and Murphy's Law is always waiting in the wings for a chance to take center stage. I don't live life in fear of nuclear war, OR in fear of losing my life savings; the latter because I have enough sense not to bet everything I own at the craps table, and the former because (so far at least) this country has had enough respect for the risks involved, to NOT get into a shooting war with a country armed with nukes...

[DoodleDawg]

Russia would use nukes in face of 'existential threat'

So would we.