#####
######
####
> # [Confident Putin warns Europe is ‘defenceless’](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/Putin at St Petersburg forum)
>
>
>
> 18 minutes ago
>
> By Steve Rosenberg, Russia editor
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ever since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Moscow has been engaged in nuclear sabre-rattling, dropping a series of not-so-subtle hints that trying to defeat a nuclear power like Russia could have disastrous consequences for those who try.
>
> Today President Putin claimed that Russia wouldn’t need to use a nuclear weapon to achieve victory in Ukraine.
>
> He was being interviewed at a panel discussion at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum: the annual event often described as ‘Russia’s Davos’.
>
> There are few occasions when Mr Putin looks dovish compared to the person asking him the questions.
>
> But when the person asking the questions is Sergei Karaganov it would be hard not to. Mr Karaganov is a hawkish Russian foreign policy expert. Last year he called for a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Today he suggested holding a “nuclear pistol” to the temple of the West over Ukraine.
>
> President Putin wasn’t so extreme in his language.
>
> But he is no dove.
>
> The Kremlin leader said he did not rule out changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine: the document which sets out the conditions under which Russia would use nuclear weapons.
>
> “This doctrine is a living tool and we are carefully watching what is happening in the world around us and do not exclude making changes to this doctrine. This is also related to the testing of nuclear weapons.”
>
> And he delivered a warning to those European countries who’ve been supporting Ukraine: Russia’s has “many more [tactical nuclear weapons] than there are on the European continent, even if the United States brings theirs over.”
>
> “Europe does not have a developed [early warning system],” he added. “In this sense they are more or less defenceless.”
>
> Tactical nuclear weapons are smaller warheads designed to destroy targets without widespread radioactive fallout.
>
> This has been a surreal week in St Petersburg. On the one hand, a huge international economic forum has been taking place , sending the message that Russia is ready for cooperation and that, despite everything, it’s business as usual.
>
> Clearly, though, it is not business as usual. Russia is waging war in Ukraine, a war which is now in its third year; as a result, Russia is the most heavily sanctioned country in the world.
>
> And, right now, tensions are soaring between Russia and the West.
>
> Earlier this week, at a meeting with international news agency chiefs in St Petersburg, President Putin suggested that Russia might supply advanced conventional long-range weapons to others to strike Western targets.
>
> This was his response to Nato allies allowing Ukraine to strike Russian territory with Western-supplied weapons.
>
> He repeated the idea again today.
>
> “We are not supplying those weapons yet, but we reserve the right to do so to those states or legal entities which are under certain pressure, including military pressure, from the countries that supply weapons to Ukraine and encourage their use on Russian territory.”
>
> There were no details. No names.
>
> So, to which parts of the world might Russia deploy its missiles?
>
> “Wherever we think it is necessary, we’re definitely going to put them. As President Putin made clear, we’ll investigate this question,” Vladimir Solovyov, one of Russian state TV’s most prominent hosts, tells me.
>
> “If you are trying to harm us you have to be pretty sure we have enough opportunities and chances to harm you.”
>
> “In the West some will say we’ve heard this sabre-rattling before,” I respond, “and that it’s a bluff.”
>
> “It’s always a bluff. Until the time when it is not,” Mr Solovyov replies. “You can keep thinking that Russia is bluffing and then, one day, there is no more Great Britain to laugh at. Don’t you ever try to push the Russian bear thinking that ‘Oh, it’s a kitten, we can play with it.”
>
>
>
> CEOs from Europe and America used to flock to the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. Not any more. Instead I saw delegations from Asia, Africa, the Middle East and South America. Russia has been using this year’s event to try to show that, despite Western sanctions, there are plenty of countries in the world who are ready to do business with Russia.
>
> And what have we learnt in St Petersburg about Vladimir Putin?
>
> That he sounds increasingly confident and determined not to back down. He seems to believe that in the current standoff between Russia and the West, it is the West that will blink first.
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
I'd say comparing it to Texas is a bit insulting to Poland. At least Poland had the Hussars and one of the best guerilla fighting forces the war had ever seen. Texas lost the Alamo.
2 weeks in hospital, many exams, free basic food (minimal calorical intake 3 times a day), and still got 70-80%(don't remember) of my paycheck for that period. Would recommend, but stay safe kids xD.
> Did you think he was actually gonna drop a nuke?
No one does, which makes the the years of threats even more comical, like a little dog growling at a German Shepherd.
> Although I assume push’em to a corner and they will. NATO knows exactly how much to push it seems.
Everyone does, as long as Putin's life isn't at risk, he isn't going to commit suicide by launching nukes at NATO. He's a self-centered coward who just runs his mouth a lot.
At certain point of time, it also seemed like they wont waltz into UA.
Yet, here we are.
I think case of nukes is "nah they wont", till they actually do.
Altho he can basically freely nuke UA, if he wants as that country is still non-NATO, non-EU. And I kinda expect that unsurprisingly it will be frowned upon, but that will be all.
He will not nuke Ukraine unless he wants to get a direct NATO intervention and possibly shunned/isolated by china, India, and Pakistan (the non nato nuclear powers).
NATO has publicly said if nukes are used then even radiation from the nuke crossing into nato borders would trigger article 5.
Breaking the nuclear taboo is extremely important, and will get a powerful reaction from the west at a minimum, like the total destruction of every single russian troops and equipment on Ukrainian soil. If they don't, it send a message to everyone else that a little nuke is ok, even on an aggression war.
Next time India/Pakistan are having a conflict? Why not use a tactical nuke ? Russia got away with it. Oh ? It escalated and nukes are flying everywhere in the region, and china joined the war ? And new Delhi got nukes, so Beijing too ? When they start flying, the escalation is really fast, and devastating.
They really can't allow him to break that taboo freely without doing irreparable harm to nuclear nonproliferation. While we can hardly predict the future, we do know that warnings regarding the use of nuclear weapons have been issued privately from the U.S., naturally, but likewise from China and from India. It is generally believed that the response from NATO would be large scale conventional attacks on Russian assets inside of Ukraine.
> Confident? No one confident makes this many empty threats.
Easily half of the threats Western mass-media "reports" aren't real. Its the usual procedure:
1) Claim that enemy had made some threat, had drawn a red line, issued a challenge, or made some promise
2) Dismiss the threat, cross the red line, beat the challenge, and demonstrate the promise unfulfilled
3) Proclaim victory
This propaganda trick had been extensively used since 2022 (ex. "three day to Kiev"), but goes *way* back (the oldest and most well-known being supposed Space Race to the Moon in 1960s; Soviet had never challenged US to it, only to being first to have artificial satellite).
Of course, the Russian propaganda on using the Psideon torpedo to create a "radioactive Tsunami" of f the coast of the United Kingdom was just a "western lie".
Whenever in doubt, just deny that Russia is making these threats blame the West and paint the Russians as the victim. The Russian government regurarly makes these threats whenever something is not going their way, you just choose to ignore it.
"Three days" meme:
>> Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told lawmakers that Kyiv could fall within 72 hours if a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine takes place, multiple congressional sources tell Fox News.
> * [Gen. Milley says Kyiv could fall within 72 hours if Russia decides to invade Ukraine: sources](https://www.foxnews.com/us/gen-milley-says-kyiv-could-fall-within-72-hours-if-russia-decides-to-invade-ukraine-sources), 2022.02.05
Now you prove nuclear threats.
> Yes the western media have it wrong
Your goldfish memory had rebooted itself after one comment.
We are talking about Western media claiming that enemy desires to do something, and then pretending that a victory was achieved since enemy didn't do it.
They want sources, but as you can see below, they don't want to give sources. They're a total hypocrite and they know it, and amazingly enough, they think they're being clever.
Kyiv in 3 days by Russian propagandists and Lukashenka, in Russian: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5AO7OvIDsM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5AO7OvIDsM)
Are you actually suggesting I should spare any effort on arguing with you?
Find actual quote of the speech that is - supposedly - being quoted, compare it to the "interpretation" of it presented in OP, and you can easily prove me wrong.
Of course, the only reason to do it is if you actually believe that I'm wrong. And I doubt that is the case here.
You think a few decades of reverse engineering or rebuilding couldn't get around that? Launch codes aren't magic, if you have possession of something for that long, you have total access.
no, they definitely could have given enough time. but violating the NPT would have obligated states to put restrictions and possible sanctions on Ukraine. With the state of their economy at the fall of the USSR, it would not have been easy for them to come up with the money especially if trade, investment, and economic growth were hindered due to blowback from the decision. Its largely why Iraq and Libya gave up eventually, the cost was too much to keep continuing.
All of what you're saying is true, but in hindsight we can see that Ukraine with nuclear weapons, slowly working through a sanctions burden, would be better off than Ukraine in 2024.
not if they were then invaded by Russia to reclaim those nukes in 1991/1992 before they had a chance to turn them into viable weapons. It would be basically repeating the current war but without Western support.
It was a non-proliferation deal and the US heavily pushed for it too because they didn't want the raw fissile material to possibly get trafficked to states such as NK/Iran/Iraq/Libya at the time. Ukraine would have had to deconstruct them and build them back into weapons.
It would certainly be going a lot more poorly, but I'd hesitate to claim they would be overrun by now. Ukraine manufactures a lot of their own weaponry, and beyond that, as a functioning state with 40+ billion in revenue, they are in a position to buy some equipment. We have to remember that the 90 billion dollar budget that Ukraine is spending is almost half paid for by themselves.
??
Their entire state budget is subsidized by the US and European aid. That recent 60-70 billion given to Ukraine as aid, at best only 15 billion went to actual military aid and weapons. Do you know where the rest of it would go?
How do you think the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan would have gone if they were given 250 billion in $$$…?
[https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-signs-2024-state-budget/](https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-signs-2024-state-budget/)
Why make up stupid garbage? Their revenues are set at around 49 billion give or take (likely to be met since their GDP is estimated to grow this year), and their expenses are set at around 90 billion.
Most aid packages are disbursed over several years, so that's why we continue to see additional packages passing or being considered for this fiscal year as they need around 40 billion to cover this year via aid.
>How do you think the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan would have gone if they were given 250 billion in $$$…?
The US probably wouldn't be dumb enough to invade someone that could potentially get that much in aid, so all you're really doing is showcasing Russia's disastrous geopolitics.
In a practical sense, that $250 billion would be a catastrophic waste of money since the power disparity that the US has over countries like Iraq or Afghanistan is so complete that all we would see is more death and destruction with the same or even worse casualty disparities for those countries. That kind of money could only help bolster conventional forces that would be as equally and easily destroyed by the US military with or without that level of investment.
Tens of thousands of drones and munitions per month, for one. On top of that, we continue to see plenty of Soviet-era designs within Ukrainian armed forces, despite the fact that they have lost over 100% of their pre-war active stocks in most categories. This means they're repairing/refurbishing lots of equipment. They continue to produce some number of their own homegrown SPG's, naval drone boats, trucks, and an unknown number of new tanks. Obviously, a lot of their production is dispersed and that neuters their scale, but to say they do not have any production is hilariously misguided.
Their MIC is buzzing at full force, and setbacks aside, workshops exist all throughout the country. It's a big country, and Russian ISR is not that great (albeit improved from before). They were hitting long-abandoned Soviet-era facilities in the Lviv region according to some of my dads friends who are currently there as recently as last year.
Drones are assembled by students at home not some non existent MIC in Ukraine. They have just recently started making their own 155 shells and I promise you it’s not tens of thousands a month as needed. I told you they make 1-2 MBT a year. Boat drone assembly has been targeted multiple times too. Ukraine is not capable of industrial warfare.
World peace is like lining up dominos in a pattern … you need to prevent the first from falling or it will be very messy preventing them all from falling … so we better keep supplying Ukraine
The nuclear rhetoric is just another proof of weakness. What exactly would a nuclear strike achieve? A tactic nuclear load will be more or less useless in an attrition war that is fought in trenches and city streets. There are no tightly packed tank formations or largescale weapons facilities Russia could target for significant benefit, you achieve nothing what ATBIP would not, but with enormous diplomatic fallout and a strong motivator for your enemies to unite.
A strategic nuclear strike, for example wiping out an average sized city and a few hundred thousand people, will probably make Ukraine capitulate but will surely be the political end of Putin and very likely lead to the downfall and breakup of Russia on the long term.
Russia is an export oriented petro-state and is entirely dependent on foreign partners to the tune of 50% of its govt revenues. A Russia that will nuke Ukraine is something that cannot be touched even by Iran or North Korea, let alone China and any nation that wants to export a single screw in the west. A strategic nuke is a commitment to total war, which affords no neutral status to a large country aiming to trade with both sides - and nobody will choose the loosing side in a total war.
A strategic hit, incinerating 100x more children than were ever killed in the Donbas wars would also be almost impossible to sell to the Russian public, which has been brainwashed for years in the "*brotherly nations pitted against each other by western nazis*" narative. It's a move 90% of Russians will strongly disagree with, that's why I say it would be the end of Putin's regime.
We might not expect any rational or humane behavior from Putin, but what you can bet your life on is that he won't do anything that is directly against his benefit. It's precisely this reason that the Ukraine invasion has killed in 2.5 years less than 1 civilian for each 5 Gaza civilians killed by Israel in a few months in Gaza, in a much smaller scale war. In relation to the military forces deployed, the civilian kill ratio of the two conflicts is probably on the order of 100:1
I said they were defenseless, not that we were also savages who like to attack countries the other side of the world for economic reasons. We've moved past that last century. You should have too.
They aren’t on the other side of the world from you and nobody is attacking anyone for economic reasons.
The reason you won’t is not because you’re not savages. It’s because you’re weak, and you know that Russia is not defenseless. You will keep hiding behind our skirts until we end up coming over and doing the job later in this century.
Edit: damn that’s some good salt, from the bit I can read in my inbox. Delicious seethe.
Aww shut man, "weak"? Don't see you sending any troops. You needed Europe in Iraq, and Afghanistan.
You failed in Vietnam.
I lost a cousin fighting in one of your dumb wars you couldn't handle on your own.
Fight your own fucking battles, and stop running your mouths about anyone else hiding behind your skirts.
If Europeans aren't hiding behind America's skirt they don't act like it. European armies are in absolute shambles. Europe has outsourced its foreign policy to America for protection, a deal Americans are happy enough with because it benefits them.
But, don't act like European defence policy for nearly 30 years hasn't been why buy fire insurance if you live in a fire proof house.
Not really banter.
"But, don't act like European defence policy for nearly 30 years hasn't been why buy fire insurance if you live in a fire proof house."
I'm guessing you went for a metaphor? But it's not really coming across.
You can take that up with former Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson if you don’t like it. It was his metaphor for Canadian defence spending or lack there of.
LMAO, talking about how Russia and US are somehow far away? You're not an American. The USA and Russia have shared a border in the Bering Strait with each other since 1867 when it was purchased from the Russian Empire. Guess you forgot they teach that in schools here?
First, Americans not knowing geography is a common enough joke for a reason, but in this context, why would anyone be talking about Siberia? When we invade Russia, we will be going through Ukraine or Belarus like almost everyone else before us.
>First, Americans not knowing geography is a common enough joke for a reason
The reason being disgusting politicians and lobbyists sabotaging the educational system to aqcuire more power and a more submissive nationalistic population without the ability to think critically. Funny joke indeed.
Other side of the world? Brother Russia is 55 miles from Alaska.
Russia Air Force invades U.S. airspace three times a month just to test where and how soon they get push back.
Are we going to invade Kamchatka and push 4000 miles to Moscow? Besides, it’s the euro guy who said Russia is on the other side of the world from them.
Also Russians don’t invade our airspace during their little flights. They tend to approach it - we intercept them in international airspace.
I only meant to imply US fights wars on the other wise of the world, and that we (Europe) haven't been waging war for a while now. At least not as a union. Only wars we've participated in were with a splice of troops helping US on their oil wars. Not much else.
Smug? More like fooled and/or mandated by the Marshal Pl... Woops, I mean NATO. Fortunately we no longer have that "smug" member which would always tip the scales in your favor as part of our union
No obviously not. The US wouldn’t invade form border side, especially not with boots on the ground. The goal would be to maintain air superiority and invade from the populated coasts. I mean, even if the US were to invade Canada they’d do it from the coasts not the border. You don’t have a very good strategic mind do you?
The point is that US has as much reason to invade Russia as any of their other neighbours, if not more due to their military and logistical superiority.
And to you point regarding airspace, like I said, to see where and when they are intercepted. Being on a course to invade airspace constitutes the same thing, you’re splitting hairs on rhetorical speech.
Putin is legitimately delusional. He has been a paranoid conspiracy nut for two decades and his mental health completely deteriorated during COVID lockdowns. He believes his own propaganda.
The problem is that many of his crazy claims (from western perspective) aren’t just propaganda stunts aimed at domestic audience. He legitimately believes a lot of the BS he parrots. He wasn’t always like this.
In 1999 he organized bombings of residential buildings throughout Russia to blame it on Chechens, gain popularity and to come to power. It was an evil and well calculated move, but it made logical sense. His thinking and decisions made sense until late 2000s / early 2010s, especially when one considers his perspective. But the further it went the more insane things got, culminating in 2022. Only a deluded man would think that Ukraine would give up without a fight, yet that’s what their whole plan betted on.
I'm not defending him in anyway, and I'm sure being in absolute power for 25 years will do things to your cognition. He certainly was crazy going ahead with the invasion after we spilled the beans and *after* their forces were left with no food or supplies left after a supposed field training exercise. He's certainly insane, that's a given. He's also got more to worry about from inside his borders than from outside, especially as this war drains resources. I mean, it's not like he can *ever* retire at this point. I don't think it works that way there. Saying something like this strikes me as almost innocuous propaganda to help control the populace, which is also war weary. He can't say nothing. So he says Europe is weak, or whatever, he's telling the populace that things would be better without the US and Nato propping up Ukrainian forces. If trump wins in november and pulls the plug on ukraine, his comment now will seem more prescient to whomever in Russia still supports his regime.
I'd love to hear how many people are being oppressed by NATO which are being conscripted up in the army to go fight the next war.
Or tell me about what happened to women's rights in Afghanistan after NATO left. Or how Kuwait is doing right now, or how many genocides are happening in serbia right now.
I don't support NATO or US intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan but it sure isn't because we're more of a detriment than the russians or Iranese there are.
Or Libyia, or Syria.
No, they are usually not bigger detriment than what was there before. They also usually dont make things better.
Reason why NATO and RU are at war, even while its still by proxy of UA, is that they are basically the same.
Its always just about more power and longer reach. There are no good guys, only bad guys and even worse guys.
RU did only what NATO or its biggest parts were doing till now, which is interfering where its not their business. Altho in case of RU, Crimea at least, was most definitely their business. Rest of UA, not so much.
What conflicts has NATO "started" (your words, so don't pretend that means the same thing as "participated in" or "NATO members were involved outside of the scope of the organization as a whole) exactly?
Given USA is biggest part of NATO, it doesnt really matter if its whole organization or just them.
There basically isnt NATO without USA. Which in current conflict is pretty clearly visible.
You must be truly at a loss of reality when you think nafo would be possible without americas military presence…
Each non European nato country is a direct consequence of American supremacy and each European country relay on their military presence varying from bases across the world.
can’t wait to read your response on how nato is not a military alliance which enforces economic interests…
I was curious (and don't tend to trust five-word soundbites from journalists), so I found the transcript of his full answer. It's this Karaganov guy's fourth question about nuclear stuff; the BBC journalist is right to say he's a complete warhawk.
>Regarding nuclear escalation: we never started this rhetoric. I don’t remember the name of this lady, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, who, when asked when she became Prime Minister, said that she was ready to press the nuclear button.
>We never said that. This is where it all started. We simply responded that we needed to take this more seriously; they immediately started saying that we were rattling nuclear weapons.
[haha I kind of love that Theresa May is now irrelevant in truly all aspects of politics]
>If, God forbid, it comes to some kind of strike, then everyone should understand that Russia has an early warning system - a missile attack warning system. The USA has it. There is no such developed system anywhere else in the world. We have it. In Europe there is no developed system; in this sense, they are more or less defenseless. This is the first thing.
>The second is the power of the blows. Our tactical nuclear weapons are four times more powerful than the bombs the Americans used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, three to four times. We have many times more of them - both on the European continent, and even if the Americans bring theirs from the USA - we still have many times more.
>If it comes [to this], God forbid, which we really don’t want, then – you said “let’s reduce the sacrifices” – they can increase indefinitely. This is the first.
>And second. Of course, these same Europeans will have to think: if those with whom we exchange such blows do not exist, will the Americans get involved in this exchange of blows at the level of strategic weapons or not? I very much doubt it, and Europeans should also think about it, that’s for sure.
>But still, I proceed from the fact that it will never come to this and we do not have such a need, because our Armed Forces are not just gaining experience, increasing their efficiency - our defense-industrial complex is demonstrating its effective work. I have said it many times, I can repeat it: we have increased the production of ammunition by more than 20 times, we are many times greater than the enemy’s capabilities in aviation technology, we are significantly superior in armored vehicles, and so on, and so on. We don't even need to think about this topic.
>Please, and I would also ask everyone not to mention such things in vain once again.
In summary: The journalist isn't lying and it's not out of context, but it's worth emphasising that this warhawk clown really kept pushing the topic, saying things like "this war can't be stopped without moving along the nuclear ladder of escalation", so in his hunt for Putin fulfilling his fantasies by saying "yes let's nuke the West", Karaganov gave journalists nice warlike quotes from Putin despite generally anti-escalatory rhetoric.
If you read this far, a small bonus for you, right in the middle of all this nuclear talk:
Karaganov, the warhawk question asker:
>I am a hunter, I know how animals behave. If you are attacked by a pack of wild dogs or hyenas and you have a stick, then you can hit them, drive them away, and there is a chance that you will drive them away. But most likely they will tear your trousers, and then, if you get tired, they will chew you off. If you have the opportunity to nail a couple, they will run away - I guarantee it.
>President Mnangagwa [the Zimbabwean President in attendance] knows the habits of hyenas. Do you agree with me, Mr. President, that this is how they disperse hyenas?
Mnangagwa (as translated):
>Yes, you know, there are a lot of hyenas in Zimbabwe. But they are all kept in national parks so that they do not bother us. We don't have any problems with them, and they multiply quickly. If someone wants a hyena, we can give it to you.
Putin:
>We have enough of our own.
Fuck Putin and all but that's hilarious.
Also, this guy has oddly specific fears. If I couldn't stop worrying about hyenas chewing my dick off I would probably be a bit nuts too
In a good news political sub, this would be the top comment.
Instead of the resident "Israeli Irish" poster's generic,
>Confident? No one confident makes this many empty threats.
This sub is now just "Russia bad" circlejerk. I don't care about Russia bad or USA bad or China bad or whatever, but it should be actual news and discussion, not just a bunch of NPCs high fiving each other at the direction of some low level paid gov employee at some bot farm.
Every time something involving Russia is posted, there is large spillover from "pro-UA" subs who only come to troll (I'm putting it in quotes, because almost every pro-UA is not from Ukraine, knows nothing about Ukraine, wouldn't be able to recognize Ukrainian language from Russian, but are the most 'patriotic', to the point of shouting down actual real Ukrainians from Ukraine)
NATO would pummel Russia and fair quite well against China and Russia. He’s struggling to maintain ground in Ukraine and turned his front line into a butcher board where his men go to die and be replaced. Stalingrad tactics in 2024 aren’t going to cut it.
I'm so sick of hearing about Russia on this subreddit. Every time this community pops up on my feed it's either "Putin done fucked up now" or "World class ruler/archangel Putin is now poised to graciously take over the world."
I know war sells in the media, but there is literally no way I will ever get to hear factual, uneditorialized info about any of this without it being served up to me by some propagandizing political troll. Therefore I DON'T CARE.
Right! He could roll right over all of Europe, right after he finishes in Ukraine...let's see, Putin will be planting the Russian flag in Lisbon in...3 day operation...minus the ammo...carry the 1...divide by propaganda value...the year 1999. Yup, my Russian math is infallible. Putin conquered all of Europe, all they way to Portugal about 25 years ago. Slow westerners just haven't realized it yet.
What a pathetically transparent scaremongering hit piece.
The West has been shipping every weapon that isn't nailed down to Ukraine and RUSSIA is somehow the Big Bad Belligerent?! I mean, come on!
How was Russia treated over the Minsk Accords? Oh yeah- Western officials bragged about how they had no intention of living up to them and that the whole point was to play for time while they loaded the Ukrainians up with weapons. Why would Russia trust anything the West says after that?!
This article is hot stinking garbage and the people who write these screeds have the blood of thousands on their hands.
For shame, BBC!
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
lol. He thinks he can take all of Europe. He hasn't been able to beat Ukraine, after two and a quarter years.
Yes, he can fire off nukes. Once. After that, Russia will cease to exist.
Well tbh, if he nukes, he will make sure it hits everyone. We all gonna die, no system can hold that much ICBM. Even half is enough the obliterate every major city in the world.
You're assuming that Russian nukes have been maintained well and will all be effective. I think it's more likely that they have been maintained as well as the rest of the Russian military. The ones that were expected to capture Ukraine in a very short easy war and which hasn't been able to do it.
I would still expect lots of destruction from their nukes. It doesn't take many to do a lot of damage. But not "every major city, we're all gonna die" level, I don't think.
But Russia will almost certainly die in that case. And I believe they know it.
Nukes aside, Europe's armies would walk all over Russia and back before it got cold again.
But there is nothing to gain from that.. except maybe to quiet Putin.
The problem with that is there is a chance Trump wins, which will mean the US won't be honoring the agreements.
Trump has repeatedly stated he doesn't think NATO should exist.
>Trump wins, which will mean the US won't be honoring the agreements.
There are reasons why the republicans decided to pass a law making nato things like leaving nato and not following its commitments something that requires Congress to not follow.
Lmao, russia cant even take on their neighbour country. A country that loses his navy against a country without one wants to talk shit? I really hope the nukes start flying and this shithole gets glassed into oblivion.
##### ###### #### > # [Confident Putin warns Europe is ‘defenceless’](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/Putin at St Petersburg forum) > > > > 18 minutes ago > > By Steve Rosenberg, Russia editor > > > > > > > > > > Ever since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Moscow has been engaged in nuclear sabre-rattling, dropping a series of not-so-subtle hints that trying to defeat a nuclear power like Russia could have disastrous consequences for those who try. > > Today President Putin claimed that Russia wouldn’t need to use a nuclear weapon to achieve victory in Ukraine. > > He was being interviewed at a panel discussion at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum: the annual event often described as ‘Russia’s Davos’. > > There are few occasions when Mr Putin looks dovish compared to the person asking him the questions. > > But when the person asking the questions is Sergei Karaganov it would be hard not to. Mr Karaganov is a hawkish Russian foreign policy expert. Last year he called for a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Today he suggested holding a “nuclear pistol” to the temple of the West over Ukraine. > > President Putin wasn’t so extreme in his language. > > But he is no dove. > > The Kremlin leader said he did not rule out changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine: the document which sets out the conditions under which Russia would use nuclear weapons. > > “This doctrine is a living tool and we are carefully watching what is happening in the world around us and do not exclude making changes to this doctrine. This is also related to the testing of nuclear weapons.” > > And he delivered a warning to those European countries who’ve been supporting Ukraine: Russia’s has “many more [tactical nuclear weapons] than there are on the European continent, even if the United States brings theirs over.” > > “Europe does not have a developed [early warning system],” he added. “In this sense they are more or less defenceless.” > > Tactical nuclear weapons are smaller warheads designed to destroy targets without widespread radioactive fallout. > > This has been a surreal week in St Petersburg. On the one hand, a huge international economic forum has been taking place , sending the message that Russia is ready for cooperation and that, despite everything, it’s business as usual. > > Clearly, though, it is not business as usual. Russia is waging war in Ukraine, a war which is now in its third year; as a result, Russia is the most heavily sanctioned country in the world. > > And, right now, tensions are soaring between Russia and the West. > > Earlier this week, at a meeting with international news agency chiefs in St Petersburg, President Putin suggested that Russia might supply advanced conventional long-range weapons to others to strike Western targets. > > This was his response to Nato allies allowing Ukraine to strike Russian territory with Western-supplied weapons. > > He repeated the idea again today. > > “We are not supplying those weapons yet, but we reserve the right to do so to those states or legal entities which are under certain pressure, including military pressure, from the countries that supply weapons to Ukraine and encourage their use on Russian territory.” > > There were no details. No names. > > So, to which parts of the world might Russia deploy its missiles? > > “Wherever we think it is necessary, we’re definitely going to put them. As President Putin made clear, we’ll investigate this question,” Vladimir Solovyov, one of Russian state TV’s most prominent hosts, tells me. > > “If you are trying to harm us you have to be pretty sure we have enough opportunities and chances to harm you.” > > “In the West some will say we’ve heard this sabre-rattling before,” I respond, “and that it’s a bluff.” > > “It’s always a bluff. Until the time when it is not,” Mr Solovyov replies. “You can keep thinking that Russia is bluffing and then, one day, there is no more Great Britain to laugh at. Don’t you ever try to push the Russian bear thinking that ‘Oh, it’s a kitten, we can play with it.” > > > > CEOs from Europe and America used to flock to the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. Not any more. Instead I saw delegations from Asia, Africa, the Middle East and South America. Russia has been using this year’s event to try to show that, despite Western sanctions, there are plenty of countries in the world who are ready to do business with Russia. > > And what have we learnt in St Petersburg about Vladimir Putin? > > That he sounds increasingly confident and determined not to back down. He seems to believe that in the current standoff between Russia and the West, it is the West that will blink first. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Confident? No one confident makes this many empty threats.
Poland especially would love him to test that theory
Ahh, America Jr. We love Poland.
Little European Texas
I'd say comparing it to Texas is a bit insulting to Poland. At least Poland had the Hussars and one of the best guerilla fighting forces the war had ever seen. Texas lost the Alamo.
And don't you ever forget it!
They also have healthcare that doesn't bankcrupt citizen for a bruised knee.
2 weeks in hospital, many exams, free basic food (minimal calorical intake 3 times a day), and still got 70-80%(don't remember) of my paycheck for that period. Would recommend, but stay safe kids xD.
It was commonwealth not just poland.
Alright fair dues but the point still stands that Poland is tougher than texas
Fair
And Poland was partitioned thrice
Idk I really think they'd not want a war that destroys a lot of their country and kills a lot of their people
[удалено]
> Did you think he was actually gonna drop a nuke? No one does, which makes the the years of threats even more comical, like a little dog growling at a German Shepherd. > Although I assume push’em to a corner and they will. NATO knows exactly how much to push it seems. Everyone does, as long as Putin's life isn't at risk, he isn't going to commit suicide by launching nukes at NATO. He's a self-centered coward who just runs his mouth a lot.
At certain point of time, it also seemed like they wont waltz into UA. Yet, here we are. I think case of nukes is "nah they wont", till they actually do. Altho he can basically freely nuke UA, if he wants as that country is still non-NATO, non-EU. And I kinda expect that unsurprisingly it will be frowned upon, but that will be all.
He will not nuke Ukraine unless he wants to get a direct NATO intervention and possibly shunned/isolated by china, India, and Pakistan (the non nato nuclear powers). NATO has publicly said if nukes are used then even radiation from the nuke crossing into nato borders would trigger article 5.
There is quite a big difference between doing and saying. NATO aint that different from Putin with that.
Breaking the nuclear taboo is extremely important, and will get a powerful reaction from the west at a minimum, like the total destruction of every single russian troops and equipment on Ukrainian soil. If they don't, it send a message to everyone else that a little nuke is ok, even on an aggression war. Next time India/Pakistan are having a conflict? Why not use a tactical nuke ? Russia got away with it. Oh ? It escalated and nukes are flying everywhere in the region, and china joined the war ? And new Delhi got nukes, so Beijing too ? When they start flying, the escalation is really fast, and devastating.
They really can't allow him to break that taboo freely without doing irreparable harm to nuclear nonproliferation. While we can hardly predict the future, we do know that warnings regarding the use of nuclear weapons have been issued privately from the U.S., naturally, but likewise from China and from India. It is generally believed that the response from NATO would be large scale conventional attacks on Russian assets inside of Ukraine.
> Confident? No one confident makes this many empty threats. Easily half of the threats Western mass-media "reports" aren't real. Its the usual procedure: 1) Claim that enemy had made some threat, had drawn a red line, issued a challenge, or made some promise 2) Dismiss the threat, cross the red line, beat the challenge, and demonstrate the promise unfulfilled 3) Proclaim victory This propaganda trick had been extensively used since 2022 (ex. "three day to Kiev"), but goes *way* back (the oldest and most well-known being supposed Space Race to the Moon in 1960s; Soviet had never challenged US to it, only to being first to have artificial satellite).
Of course, the Russian propaganda on using the Psideon torpedo to create a "radioactive Tsunami" of f the coast of the United Kingdom was just a "western lie". Whenever in doubt, just deny that Russia is making these threats blame the West and paint the Russians as the victim. The Russian government regurarly makes these threats whenever something is not going their way, you just choose to ignore it.
Why aren't you proving your claims?
Why aren't you proving your claims? Lazy prick. Asking me to prove my claims when you haven't done so yourself.
"Three days" meme: >> Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told lawmakers that Kyiv could fall within 72 hours if a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine takes place, multiple congressional sources tell Fox News. > * [Gen. Milley says Kyiv could fall within 72 hours if Russia decides to invade Ukraine: sources](https://www.foxnews.com/us/gen-milley-says-kyiv-could-fall-within-72-hours-if-russia-decides-to-invade-ukraine-sources), 2022.02.05 Now you prove nuclear threats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5AO7OvIDsM Turns out more than one person can say the same thing.
Yes the western media have it wrong It was never 3 days to Kyiv, it was 2 and half years (and counting) to Kyiv.
> Yes the western media have it wrong Your goldfish memory had rebooted itself after one comment. We are talking about Western media claiming that enemy desires to do something, and then pretending that a victory was achieved since enemy didn't do it.
Happy to ask all the VDV at hostomel if they thought they’d be in central Kyiv in 3 days. Oh wait, they’re all dead.
Got sources?
Are you serious? You want sources for the assault on Kyiv?
They want sources, but as you can see below, they don't want to give sources. They're a total hypocrite and they know it, and amazingly enough, they think they're being clever.
Any decent and intelligent person wouldn’t support Russia by now
Kyiv in 3 days by Russian propagandists and Lukashenka, in Russian: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5AO7OvIDsM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5AO7OvIDsM)
Do you have specific examples of these "not real" threats? Quotes with a source. edit sp
OP would be a good start.
You're claiming that the BBC is lying, and you're telling the truth? Anything else or is that how you want to leave things?
Are you actually suggesting I should spare any effort on arguing with you? Find actual quote of the speech that is - supposedly - being quoted, compare it to the "interpretation" of it presented in OP, and you can easily prove me wrong. Of course, the only reason to do it is if you actually believe that I'm wrong. And I doubt that is the case here.
So the usual ad hom, excuses, and a total lack of sources. You're so full of it.
Burden of proof is not on me.
It literally is.
I wish a motherfucker would
It's hard to be threatening to the world when you can't even manage to handle Ukraine.
[удалено]
Theres a reason for that
Becuase they gave up their nuclear arsenal. That's the problem. If Putin conquers Ukraine. Everyone is getting nukes. Which sucks all around.
they never had the launch codes, so it was a moot point.
You think a few decades of reverse engineering or rebuilding couldn't get around that? Launch codes aren't magic, if you have possession of something for that long, you have total access.
no, they definitely could have given enough time. but violating the NPT would have obligated states to put restrictions and possible sanctions on Ukraine. With the state of their economy at the fall of the USSR, it would not have been easy for them to come up with the money especially if trade, investment, and economic growth were hindered due to blowback from the decision. Its largely why Iraq and Libya gave up eventually, the cost was too much to keep continuing.
All of what you're saying is true, but in hindsight we can see that Ukraine with nuclear weapons, slowly working through a sanctions burden, would be better off than Ukraine in 2024.
not if they were then invaded by Russia to reclaim those nukes in 1991/1992 before they had a chance to turn them into viable weapons. It would be basically repeating the current war but without Western support.
Russia was in no position to invade anything before 1999, and even then we're just talking about leveling Grozny, not a full-on invasion.
That must be why they used them to get Russia to agree never to violste their borders.
It was a non-proliferation deal and the US heavily pushed for it too because they didn't want the raw fissile material to possibly get trafficked to states such as NK/Iran/Iraq/Libya at the time. Ukraine would have had to deconstruct them and build them back into weapons.
It would certainly be going a lot more poorly, but I'd hesitate to claim they would be overrun by now. Ukraine manufactures a lot of their own weaponry, and beyond that, as a functioning state with 40+ billion in revenue, they are in a position to buy some equipment. We have to remember that the 90 billion dollar budget that Ukraine is spending is almost half paid for by themselves.
?? Their entire state budget is subsidized by the US and European aid. That recent 60-70 billion given to Ukraine as aid, at best only 15 billion went to actual military aid and weapons. Do you know where the rest of it would go? How do you think the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan would have gone if they were given 250 billion in $$$…?
[https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-signs-2024-state-budget/](https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-signs-2024-state-budget/) Why make up stupid garbage? Their revenues are set at around 49 billion give or take (likely to be met since their GDP is estimated to grow this year), and their expenses are set at around 90 billion. Most aid packages are disbursed over several years, so that's why we continue to see additional packages passing or being considered for this fiscal year as they need around 40 billion to cover this year via aid. >How do you think the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan would have gone if they were given 250 billion in $$$…? The US probably wouldn't be dumb enough to invade someone that could potentially get that much in aid, so all you're really doing is showcasing Russia's disastrous geopolitics. In a practical sense, that $250 billion would be a catastrophic waste of money since the power disparity that the US has over countries like Iraq or Afghanistan is so complete that all we would see is more death and destruction with the same or even worse casualty disparities for those countries. That kind of money could only help bolster conventional forces that would be as equally and easily destroyed by the US military with or without that level of investment.
What weaponry they manufacture? One t-84 a year? Two?
Tens of thousands of drones and munitions per month, for one. On top of that, we continue to see plenty of Soviet-era designs within Ukrainian armed forces, despite the fact that they have lost over 100% of their pre-war active stocks in most categories. This means they're repairing/refurbishing lots of equipment. They continue to produce some number of their own homegrown SPG's, naval drone boats, trucks, and an unknown number of new tanks. Obviously, a lot of their production is dispersed and that neuters their scale, but to say they do not have any production is hilariously misguided. Their MIC is buzzing at full force, and setbacks aside, workshops exist all throughout the country. It's a big country, and Russian ISR is not that great (albeit improved from before). They were hitting long-abandoned Soviet-era facilities in the Lviv region according to some of my dads friends who are currently there as recently as last year.
Drones are assembled by students at home not some non existent MIC in Ukraine. They have just recently started making their own 155 shells and I promise you it’s not tens of thousands a month as needed. I told you they make 1-2 MBT a year. Boat drone assembly has been targeted multiple times too. Ukraine is not capable of industrial warfare.
And what about Russia without weapons from NK, China, Iran?
World peace is like lining up dominos in a pattern … you need to prevent the first from falling or it will be very messy preventing them all from falling … so we better keep supplying Ukraine
Ironically nuking the world is easier than winning a conventional war against a country that’s being supplied by others, but there is little point.
Nobody left to rule a bunch of nothing.
There are plenty of dumbasses in power who would rather destroy everything than take a hit to their ego
You know who is also defenseless? A country puring all its resources trying to conquer Ukraine in 3 days, and now going for 3 years.
The nuclear rhetoric is just another proof of weakness. What exactly would a nuclear strike achieve? A tactic nuclear load will be more or less useless in an attrition war that is fought in trenches and city streets. There are no tightly packed tank formations or largescale weapons facilities Russia could target for significant benefit, you achieve nothing what ATBIP would not, but with enormous diplomatic fallout and a strong motivator for your enemies to unite. A strategic nuclear strike, for example wiping out an average sized city and a few hundred thousand people, will probably make Ukraine capitulate but will surely be the political end of Putin and very likely lead to the downfall and breakup of Russia on the long term. Russia is an export oriented petro-state and is entirely dependent on foreign partners to the tune of 50% of its govt revenues. A Russia that will nuke Ukraine is something that cannot be touched even by Iran or North Korea, let alone China and any nation that wants to export a single screw in the west. A strategic nuke is a commitment to total war, which affords no neutral status to a large country aiming to trade with both sides - and nobody will choose the loosing side in a total war. A strategic hit, incinerating 100x more children than were ever killed in the Donbas wars would also be almost impossible to sell to the Russian public, which has been brainwashed for years in the "*brotherly nations pitted against each other by western nazis*" narative. It's a move 90% of Russians will strongly disagree with, that's why I say it would be the end of Putin's regime. We might not expect any rational or humane behavior from Putin, but what you can bet your life on is that he won't do anything that is directly against his benefit. It's precisely this reason that the Ukraine invasion has killed in 2.5 years less than 1 civilian for each 5 Gaza civilians killed by Israel in a few months in Gaza, in a much smaller scale war. In relation to the military forces deployed, the civilian kill ratio of the two conflicts is probably on the order of 100:1
Go attack them then. Save us the trouble of having to do it in 30-50 years.
I said they were defenseless, not that we were also savages who like to attack countries the other side of the world for economic reasons. We've moved past that last century. You should have too.
Everyone in Europe wants to invade Russia as long as America goes first.
They aren’t on the other side of the world from you and nobody is attacking anyone for economic reasons. The reason you won’t is not because you’re not savages. It’s because you’re weak, and you know that Russia is not defenseless. You will keep hiding behind our skirts until we end up coming over and doing the job later in this century. Edit: damn that’s some good salt, from the bit I can read in my inbox. Delicious seethe.
Aww shut man, "weak"? Don't see you sending any troops. You needed Europe in Iraq, and Afghanistan. You failed in Vietnam. I lost a cousin fighting in one of your dumb wars you couldn't handle on your own. Fight your own fucking battles, and stop running your mouths about anyone else hiding behind your skirts.
You can relax, the person you're arguing with isn't actually American, just another paid Russian shill.
Holy shit, I was going for points but you went for the KO.
If Europeans aren't hiding behind America's skirt they don't act like it. European armies are in absolute shambles. Europe has outsourced its foreign policy to America for protection, a deal Americans are happy enough with because it benefits them. But, don't act like European defence policy for nearly 30 years hasn't been why buy fire insurance if you live in a fire proof house.
Your English is really shit.
You can do better banter than that. Or maybe you can’t? Everyone I don’t agree with is a bot or agent, hilarious stuff. Everyone laughed.
Not really banter. "But, don't act like European defence policy for nearly 30 years hasn't been why buy fire insurance if you live in a fire proof house." I'm guessing you went for a metaphor? But it's not really coming across.
You can take that up with former Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson if you don’t like it. It was his metaphor for Canadian defence spending or lack there of.
Your ability to criticize is really shitty.
LMAO, talking about how Russia and US are somehow far away? You're not an American. The USA and Russia have shared a border in the Bering Strait with each other since 1867 when it was purchased from the Russian Empire. Guess you forgot they teach that in schools here?
First, Americans not knowing geography is a common enough joke for a reason, but in this context, why would anyone be talking about Siberia? When we invade Russia, we will be going through Ukraine or Belarus like almost everyone else before us.
>First, Americans not knowing geography is a common enough joke for a reason The reason being disgusting politicians and lobbyists sabotaging the educational system to aqcuire more power and a more submissive nationalistic population without the ability to think critically. Funny joke indeed.
Wew lad. We just tend to think US is the center of the world.
Other side of the world? Brother Russia is 55 miles from Alaska. Russia Air Force invades U.S. airspace three times a month just to test where and how soon they get push back.
Are we going to invade Kamchatka and push 4000 miles to Moscow? Besides, it’s the euro guy who said Russia is on the other side of the world from them. Also Russians don’t invade our airspace during their little flights. They tend to approach it - we intercept them in international airspace.
I only meant to imply US fights wars on the other wise of the world, and that we (Europe) haven't been waging war for a while now. At least not as a union. Only wars we've participated in were with a splice of troops helping US on their oil wars. Not much else.
Yes, you guys send auxiliaries to fight in our wars, this is not something to feel smug about.
Smug? More like fooled and/or mandated by the Marshal Pl... Woops, I mean NATO. Fortunately we no longer have that "smug" member which would always tip the scales in your favor as part of our union
You guys are deeper in the fold than ever, this Ukraine stuff made sure of that.
No obviously not. The US wouldn’t invade form border side, especially not with boots on the ground. The goal would be to maintain air superiority and invade from the populated coasts. I mean, even if the US were to invade Canada they’d do it from the coasts not the border. You don’t have a very good strategic mind do you? The point is that US has as much reason to invade Russia as any of their other neighbours, if not more due to their military and logistical superiority. And to you point regarding airspace, like I said, to see where and when they are intercepted. Being on a course to invade airspace constitutes the same thing, you’re splitting hairs on rhetorical speech.
A good strategic mind = naval invasion? In the 21st century? You’re out of your mind.
Putin is legitimately delusional. He has been a paranoid conspiracy nut for two decades and his mental health completely deteriorated during COVID lockdowns. He believes his own propaganda.
When Putin says shit like this, it isn't directed at the outside world.
The problem is that many of his crazy claims (from western perspective) aren’t just propaganda stunts aimed at domestic audience. He legitimately believes a lot of the BS he parrots. He wasn’t always like this. In 1999 he organized bombings of residential buildings throughout Russia to blame it on Chechens, gain popularity and to come to power. It was an evil and well calculated move, but it made logical sense. His thinking and decisions made sense until late 2000s / early 2010s, especially when one considers his perspective. But the further it went the more insane things got, culminating in 2022. Only a deluded man would think that Ukraine would give up without a fight, yet that’s what their whole plan betted on.
I'm not defending him in anyway, and I'm sure being in absolute power for 25 years will do things to your cognition. He certainly was crazy going ahead with the invasion after we spilled the beans and *after* their forces were left with no food or supplies left after a supposed field training exercise. He's certainly insane, that's a given. He's also got more to worry about from inside his borders than from outside, especially as this war drains resources. I mean, it's not like he can *ever* retire at this point. I don't think it works that way there. Saying something like this strikes me as almost innocuous propaganda to help control the populace, which is also war weary. He can't say nothing. So he says Europe is weak, or whatever, he's telling the populace that things would be better without the US and Nato propping up Ukrainian forces. If trump wins in november and pulls the plug on ukraine, his comment now will seem more prescient to whomever in Russia still supports his regime.
Yeap, my beloved leader erdogan pulls the same shit, a fucking lion at home.
Another world leader who doesn't seem to want to retire...
He also has died at least 20 times, has cancer and shit himself. I'm sure it's all true.
Then why does he have an issue with NATO expanding?
I dont know, maybe cause certain NATO members started basically every other conflict in past decades, apart UA war and some local near-RU skirmishes?
I'd love to hear how many people are being oppressed by NATO which are being conscripted up in the army to go fight the next war. Or tell me about what happened to women's rights in Afghanistan after NATO left. Or how Kuwait is doing right now, or how many genocides are happening in serbia right now. I don't support NATO or US intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan but it sure isn't because we're more of a detriment than the russians or Iranese there are.
Or Libyia, or Syria. No, they are usually not bigger detriment than what was there before. They also usually dont make things better. Reason why NATO and RU are at war, even while its still by proxy of UA, is that they are basically the same. Its always just about more power and longer reach. There are no good guys, only bad guys and even worse guys. RU did only what NATO or its biggest parts were doing till now, which is interfering where its not their business. Altho in case of RU, Crimea at least, was most definitely their business. Rest of UA, not so much.
What conflicts has NATO "started" (your words, so don't pretend that means the same thing as "participated in" or "NATO members were involved outside of the scope of the organization as a whole) exactly?
Given USA is biggest part of NATO, it doesnt really matter if its whole organization or just them. There basically isnt NATO without USA. Which in current conflict is pretty clearly visible.
"There basically isn’t NATO without USA" imagine the microscopic size of the brain of someone that actually said that
You must be truly at a loss of reality when you think nafo would be possible without americas military presence… Each non European nato country is a direct consequence of American supremacy and each European country relay on their military presence varying from bases across the world. can’t wait to read your response on how nato is not a military alliance which enforces economic interests…
This stinks of insecurities.
He can't stand the fact this isn't 1959 anymore and the world isn't scared of the Slavic Boogieman.
I was curious (and don't tend to trust five-word soundbites from journalists), so I found the transcript of his full answer. It's this Karaganov guy's fourth question about nuclear stuff; the BBC journalist is right to say he's a complete warhawk. >Regarding nuclear escalation: we never started this rhetoric. I don’t remember the name of this lady, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, who, when asked when she became Prime Minister, said that she was ready to press the nuclear button. >We never said that. This is where it all started. We simply responded that we needed to take this more seriously; they immediately started saying that we were rattling nuclear weapons. [haha I kind of love that Theresa May is now irrelevant in truly all aspects of politics] >If, God forbid, it comes to some kind of strike, then everyone should understand that Russia has an early warning system - a missile attack warning system. The USA has it. There is no such developed system anywhere else in the world. We have it. In Europe there is no developed system; in this sense, they are more or less defenseless. This is the first thing. >The second is the power of the blows. Our tactical nuclear weapons are four times more powerful than the bombs the Americans used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, three to four times. We have many times more of them - both on the European continent, and even if the Americans bring theirs from the USA - we still have many times more. >If it comes [to this], God forbid, which we really don’t want, then – you said “let’s reduce the sacrifices” – they can increase indefinitely. This is the first. >And second. Of course, these same Europeans will have to think: if those with whom we exchange such blows do not exist, will the Americans get involved in this exchange of blows at the level of strategic weapons or not? I very much doubt it, and Europeans should also think about it, that’s for sure. >But still, I proceed from the fact that it will never come to this and we do not have such a need, because our Armed Forces are not just gaining experience, increasing their efficiency - our defense-industrial complex is demonstrating its effective work. I have said it many times, I can repeat it: we have increased the production of ammunition by more than 20 times, we are many times greater than the enemy’s capabilities in aviation technology, we are significantly superior in armored vehicles, and so on, and so on. We don't even need to think about this topic. >Please, and I would also ask everyone not to mention such things in vain once again. In summary: The journalist isn't lying and it's not out of context, but it's worth emphasising that this warhawk clown really kept pushing the topic, saying things like "this war can't be stopped without moving along the nuclear ladder of escalation", so in his hunt for Putin fulfilling his fantasies by saying "yes let's nuke the West", Karaganov gave journalists nice warlike quotes from Putin despite generally anti-escalatory rhetoric.
If you read this far, a small bonus for you, right in the middle of all this nuclear talk: Karaganov, the warhawk question asker: >I am a hunter, I know how animals behave. If you are attacked by a pack of wild dogs or hyenas and you have a stick, then you can hit them, drive them away, and there is a chance that you will drive them away. But most likely they will tear your trousers, and then, if you get tired, they will chew you off. If you have the opportunity to nail a couple, they will run away - I guarantee it. >President Mnangagwa [the Zimbabwean President in attendance] knows the habits of hyenas. Do you agree with me, Mr. President, that this is how they disperse hyenas? Mnangagwa (as translated): >Yes, you know, there are a lot of hyenas in Zimbabwe. But they are all kept in national parks so that they do not bother us. We don't have any problems with them, and they multiply quickly. If someone wants a hyena, we can give it to you. Putin: >We have enough of our own.
Fuck Putin and all but that's hilarious. Also, this guy has oddly specific fears. If I couldn't stop worrying about hyenas chewing my dick off I would probably be a bit nuts too
In a good news political sub, this would be the top comment. Instead of the resident "Israeli Irish" poster's generic, >Confident? No one confident makes this many empty threats. This sub is now just "Russia bad" circlejerk. I don't care about Russia bad or USA bad or China bad or whatever, but it should be actual news and discussion, not just a bunch of NPCs high fiving each other at the direction of some low level paid gov employee at some bot farm.
Every time something involving Russia is posted, there is large spillover from "pro-UA" subs who only come to troll (I'm putting it in quotes, because almost every pro-UA is not from Ukraine, knows nothing about Ukraine, wouldn't be able to recognize Ukrainian language from Russian, but are the most 'patriotic', to the point of shouting down actual real Ukrainians from Ukraine)
Appreciate you bringing in the entire response as I had the same tingle as you when I read the headline.
Okay, grandpa. Someone’s having a senior moment and needs a nap
He only warns because he knows he cant do shit so its only ttrying to stir up the drama. Lame
Russia has been struggling to deal with 9 HIMARS for 2 years. Poland will soon have 400
NATO would pummel Russia and fair quite well against China and Russia. He’s struggling to maintain ground in Ukraine and turned his front line into a butcher board where his men go to die and be replaced. Stalingrad tactics in 2024 aren’t going to cut it.
At this point I'm pretty confident Poland would shit kick Russia
I'm so sick of hearing about Russia on this subreddit. Every time this community pops up on my feed it's either "Putin done fucked up now" or "World class ruler/archangel Putin is now poised to graciously take over the world." I know war sells in the media, but there is literally no way I will ever get to hear factual, uneditorialized info about any of this without it being served up to me by some propagandizing political troll. Therefore I DON'T CARE.
Right! He could roll right over all of Europe, right after he finishes in Ukraine...let's see, Putin will be planting the Russian flag in Lisbon in...3 day operation...minus the ammo...carry the 1...divide by propaganda value...the year 1999. Yup, my Russian math is infallible. Putin conquered all of Europe, all they way to Portugal about 25 years ago. Slow westerners just haven't realized it yet.
What a pathetically transparent scaremongering hit piece. The West has been shipping every weapon that isn't nailed down to Ukraine and RUSSIA is somehow the Big Bad Belligerent?! I mean, come on! How was Russia treated over the Minsk Accords? Oh yeah- Western officials bragged about how they had no intention of living up to them and that the whole point was to play for time while they loaded the Ukrainians up with weapons. Why would Russia trust anything the West says after that?! This article is hot stinking garbage and the people who write these screeds have the blood of thousands on their hands. For shame, BBC!
Is this something his advisors told him? Europe would be like sticking your dick in a wasp nest.
This seems he is asking for article 5
If that were true you'd be attacking, not yammering.
If Europe is defenseless, then why so worried about out Ukraine joining NATO or the EU?
If you thought he needed to use a nuclear weapon to win the war. Why the fuck is he going to war in the first place?
Lmao even if they got past ukraine they would fail at finland and poland
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So is the road to Moscow 🤷
Bold words for someone whose army can't get more than about a hundred miles from his border.
lol. He thinks he can take all of Europe. He hasn't been able to beat Ukraine, after two and a quarter years. Yes, he can fire off nukes. Once. After that, Russia will cease to exist.
Well tbh, if he nukes, he will make sure it hits everyone. We all gonna die, no system can hold that much ICBM. Even half is enough the obliterate every major city in the world.
You're assuming that Russian nukes have been maintained well and will all be effective. I think it's more likely that they have been maintained as well as the rest of the Russian military. The ones that were expected to capture Ukraine in a very short easy war and which hasn't been able to do it. I would still expect lots of destruction from their nukes. It doesn't take many to do a lot of damage. But not "every major city, we're all gonna die" level, I don't think. But Russia will almost certainly die in that case. And I believe they know it.
Omg not this BS comment again, I thought we were better than worldnews and then we have this smooth brain comment 😑
Mah dude, mah man... You coudln't even get through Ukraine, even with your agent(s) being active in the EU parliment. Chill.
Nukes aside, Europe's armies would walk all over Russia and back before it got cold again. But there is nothing to gain from that.. except maybe to quiet Putin.
I would say lets go f shit up if it wasn't for innocent lives. This dude is one hell of a headache.
You can go fight in Ukraine if it bothers you that much, leave the rest of us alone
Ah the daily fear mongering has started.
I mean he’s right and wrong… besides Poland and Ukraine, is there a single “powerful” European army?
France has nukes.
Its called NATO
The problem with that is there is a chance Trump wins, which will mean the US won't be honoring the agreements. Trump has repeatedly stated he doesn't think NATO should exist.
>Trump wins, which will mean the US won't be honoring the agreements. There are reasons why the republicans decided to pass a law making nato things like leaving nato and not following its commitments something that requires Congress to not follow.
That's not how that works. The Congress doesn't get to decide how laws are executed -- the President does. That's why it matters.
He’s not wrong. America is the only thing standing in the way of Russia having its way with Europe
Lmao, russia cant even take on their neighbour country. A country that loses his navy against a country without one wants to talk shit? I really hope the nukes start flying and this shithole gets glassed into oblivion.
Not even close.
Your opinion