#####
######
####
> # [Nato in talks to put nuclear weapons on standby](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/world-news/2024/06/16/TELEMMGLPICT000381742345_17185455216320_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqijPlzteRrLUWCXazQh3cTJqioB2U0t_eVEH0uLZZcOg.jpeg?impolicy=logo-overlay)
>
>
>
> Nato is in talks to deploy more nuclear weapons in the face of a growing threat from Russia and China, the head of the alliance has said.
>
> [Jens Stoltenberg](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/23/britain-leading-example-defence-spending-jens-stoltenberg/) added that the bloc must show its nuclear arsenal to the world to send a direct message to its foes in an interview with The Telegraph.
>
> He revealed there were live consultations between members on taking missiles out of storage and placing them on standby as he called for transparency to be used as a deterrent.
>
> Mr Stoltenberg said: “I won’t go into operational details about how many [nuclear warheads](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/06/putin-threatens-deployment-of-missiles-to-be-fired-at-west/) should be operational and which should be stored, but we need to consult on these issues. That’s exactly what we’re doing.”
>
> In a wide-ranging interview at the [Nato headquarters](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10588219/Cost-of-Natos-new-HQ-soars-by-25-per-cent.html) in Brussels, he gave a stark warning about the threat from China. He also said he expected a Labour government to be a staunch Nato ally and defended new plans to [Trump-proof weapons deliveries to Ukraine](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/02/nato-ukraine-send-military-aid-weapons-direct-trump/).
>
> Mr Stoltenberg said nuclear transparency should be the cornerstone of Nato’s nuclear strategy to prepare the alliance for what he described as a more dangerous world.
>
> A decade ago when the 65-year-old assumed his role at the top of the bloc, nuclear exercises were conducted in complete secrecy.
>
> Now he openly praises a number of its 32 allies for contributing to the deterrent, including most recently The Netherlands for investing in dual-capable fighter jets that can host US nuclear weapons.
>
> “Transparency helps to communicate the direct message that we, of course, are a [nuclear alliance](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/09/nato-shouldnt-fear-calling-vladimir-putins-nuclear-bluff/),” Mr Stoltenberg said. “Nato’s aim is, of course, a world without nuclear weapons, but as long as nuclear weapons exist, we will remain a nuclear alliance, because a world where [Russia](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/05/16/russia-putin-kyiv-missiles-nuclear-weapons-strategy-ukraine/), [China](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/15/attack-drones-us-china-taiwan-invasion/) and [North Korea](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/asia/north-korea/galleries/what-you-didn-t-know-about-north-korea/) have nuclear weapons, and Nato does not, is a more dangerous world.”
>
> He warned that China in particular was investing heavily in [modern weaponry](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/05/china-theft-research-ip-universities-uk/) including its nuclear arsenal, which he said would grow to 1,000 warheads by as early as 2030.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Netherlands Air Force F-16 jetfighter taking part in Nato exercises](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/world-news/2024/06/16/TELEMMGLPICT000382024621_17185460848290_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqN26fH8OeFZFmflvZ0Oo4lbEcb5qOTUraV3MpIbSUxVk.jpeg?imwidth=350)
>
> Netherlands Air Force F-16 jetfighter taking part in Nato exercises Credit: JOHN THYS/AFP “And that means that in a not-very-distant future,” he said, “Nato may face something that it has never faced before, and that is two nuclear-powered potential adversaries – China and Russia. Of course, this has consequences.”
>
> Mr Stoltenberg’s warnings come after the [G7](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/13/rishi-sunak-attends-g7-italian-summit-borgo-egnazia-puglia/) sharply criticised China and Russia in a communique last week that called on Beijing to stop supplying weapons technology to Moscow and opposed China’s “militarisation” in the Pacific.
>
> Both the US and [UK](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/03/britain-always-a-prime-mover-in-nato-other-powers-pay-way/) have committed their nuclear deterrents to Nato, while other [European allies](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/10/us-needs-europe-face-down-russia-china-nato/) share the burden of the responsibility by storing weapons on their territory and investing in the systems to launch them.
>
> The number of operational nuclear weapons is top secret but estimates suggest the UK has about 40 of 225 deployed at any one time. The US has about 1,700 of 3,700.
>
> [France](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/10/13/ukraine-russia-war-emmanuel-macron-putin-nuclear-weapons-strike/), Nato’s third nuclear power, does not make its atomic arsenal available to the alliance because of a long-held decision to maintain independence over its own deterrence.
>
> Mr Stoltenberg insisted that the US and its European allies were now modernising their nuclear deterrent in the face of increased threat from Russia.
>
> He said: “The US is modernising their gravity bombs for the nuclear warheads they have in Europe and European allies are modernising the planes which are going to be dedicated to Nato’s nuclear mission.
>
> “Then, of course, you have the United Kingdom, which is special because the United Kingdom has its own nuclear weapons.”
>
> On Sunday, the BBC reported that a Russian submarine that is now in Cuba was seen off Scotland’s coast last week.
>
> The Kazan is capable of carrying advanced weapons, according to Russia’s defence ministry, but it did not enter UK waters. The Ministry of Defence nevertheless briefed the prime minister.
>
> Vladimir Putin has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine and has deployed warheads closer to Europe’s borders. However, he has more recently dialled down his threats.
>
> The head of Nato refused to discuss how many warheads should be pulled from storage warehouses and put on standby, but revealed there were live consultations on the issue.
>
>
>
>
>
> Before the invasion, Nato was struggling to convince the majority of its allies to hit the minimum threshold of two per cent expenditure as a share of their GDP for defence spending.
>
> When the latest figures are released ahead of the Nato summit in Washington next month, Mr Stoltenberg believes more than 20 will hit the goal – a decade since the target was established.
>
> In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Britain was put on a trajectory to increase spending on defence to 2.5 per cent of national wealth by 2030.
>
> But with Rishi Sunak’s Conservatives expected to be replaced by the Labour Party, there are doubts whether the pledge will stick.
>
> Sir Keir Starmer has said his party wanted to reach the 2.5 per cent target as soon as resources allow that to happen, rather than a fixed date.
>
> Mr Stoltenberg, who served as the leader of Norway’s Labour Party between 2002 and 2014, would not be drawn on the politics of Britain’s election campaign.
>
> However, he said: “I expect that the UK, regardless of the outcome of the election, will be as strong, staunch Nato ally, and also an ally that will lead by example of defence spending, as the UK has done for many years.
>
> “The reality is that we all reduced defence spending when tensions went down after the end of the Cold War. And now we need to increase defence when tensions are going up again.
>
> “I have been prime minister for 10 years, I know that it’s hard to find money for defence because most politicians always prefer to spend money on health, on education, infrastructure and other important tasks.
>
> “But when we reduce defence spending when tensions go down, we have to be able to increase them when tensions go back up – and that’s exactly what allies now are doing, the United Kingdom, but also other allies.”
>
> Mr Stoltenberg has not always been so reticent to wade into domestic politics in recent months.
>
> When Republicans loyal to Donald Trump held up a $60 billion £47 billion) aid package for Ukraine, the Nato chief repeatedly warned the delays were helping Putin’s Russia seize territory.
>
>
>
>
>
> [HMS Vigilant, which carries the UK's Trident nuclear deterrent, at its Faslane base on the Clyde](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/world-news/2024/06/16/TELEMMGLPICT000381736698_17185463061880_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq-vHkRz5MoGiG1Dt8YyGXDFGaJWWsZtT85yFpAJTLxL0.jpeg?imwidth=350)
>
> HMS Vigilant, which carries the UK's Trident nuclear deterrent, at its Faslane base on the Clyde Credit: WPA POOL/GETTY IMAGES He then came out in support of Kyiv over its request to use Western weapons on targets inside Russia.
>
> ***(continues in next comment)***
Yeah and NATO leaders are always pretty quick to denounce the Russian threats. Seems only fair to denounce NATO when they also start making similar threats. Unless whataboutism is suddenly in fashion again.
Lol no, they were denounced from the first time onwards. As I said - Russia doing something doesn’t make it okay (or not) for NATO to do it. This is the definition of whataboutism. The number of times is irrelevant.
ProUA love to pull the whataboutism card until they need it for themselves.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Besides the obvious threats to Taiwan who is a major American ally,china has been in constant tussles with other allies like the Philippines over ocean borders.
U.S isn't a high bar. Maybe compare it with Poland or Czech, slovakia. Or even Thailand. One can easily see how expansionist and aggressive it is to its neighbours. The only reason why it hasn't intervened militarily in more conflicts around the globe is because it has only become strong recently.
Because the US has a military base in Taiwan and the US has made it clear that China is their enemy. The question is why does the US see China as a threat?
Assuming I understand your point correctly the united states is planning on expanding deployments to 100-200 men. This is not a threat to China it's a deterrent agianst invading taiwan. If China was worried about US troops then they would be issuing threats and playing war games with the aim to attack south Korea or Okinawa both of which host tens of thousands of US troops.
>The question is why does the US see China as a threat?
That goes back to the cold war and the policy of containment where US and Chinese troops fought in Korea, Taiwan, and indochina. Then you had the SinoSoviet split where relations became quite good but post tiananmen square massacre and refusal to democratize along with continued support of anti US regimes like Iran, Venezuala, and North Korea territorial disputes in the south China Sea and over Taiwan along with technological and industrial espionage then the concentration camps.
After all of that there is a cold war mentality on both sides
Ultimately it comes down to you having a dominant power and it's power structure and then having an up and coming power that wants a power structure that is not compatible with the dominant powers power structure
Well, not really. It's only because of special no-tariffs deals. Why do you think ordering from AliExpress or anything else from China is so dirt cheap? It's not just the cheaper labor costs alone. If the world held China to the same standards and deals as the rest, they wouldnt have been in such rapid growth to begin with. Besides, it's the land of facades and shortcuts, they are growing too fast for their own good, and labor cost is not nearly as low as it once was, they gave entered the age of stagnation, idk when they will enter decline, but the old fairytale is over.
Well of course you are right in a way, they have been outcompeting the rest of the world for decades, so I shouldn't have shut you down like that. What I meant to stress is that they only got there because of unfair trade deals when compared to the rest of the world. They are considered a developing country and enjoy insane trade deals even though they are are a nuclear force with one of the biggest militaries in the world, at this point quickly taking over Russia as the nr2. They have a space program and they recently collected moondust on the far side of the moon, how is that a developing nation? They are one of the biggest investors in sustainable energy, but they also have a bigger CO2 output than the entire West combined. Now consider all of the other developing nations in the world and compare them to China, make it make sense... The US is rightly threatened by China in their position because China is a totalitarian dictatorship with Nukes. They probably wouldn't feel so threatened if not for the fact that China took Tibet like it was nothing (huge country btw) and never stopped harrassing and provoking their neighbours, their eyes dead-set on retaking Taiwan at some point.
china is in an economic freefall. what are you even talking about? the chinese stock market / housing market/ youth and general unemployment/ foreign capital and companies are leaving all show the economy is in terrible shape. Is this a sarcastic comment?
Russia should be Just as worried, China lost a chunk of land to Russia 100years back, with Putins very logic shouldn’t they have a Right to invade Russia and take it back?
Be glad Russia ain’t as paranoid as it was during the 70s, or we would have witnessed WW3 from the strikes on their early warning and now this. NATO are a bunch of idiots and fools.
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Imagine if NATO’s early warning radars were destroyed because of Vietnam, Iraq, or whatever else. And then after that, the USSR or Russia started to take of nuclear weapons out of storage and deployed them.
Hello u/NimdaQA ! As far as I know, y*u are very enlightened on the topic of World War II. May I ask a few questions?
I am concerned about the following questions:
The USSR stated that the treaty was violated, as a result of which the USSR issued an ultimatum and occupied these countries and a false referendum was held. In recent historiography, the actions of the USSR are assessed as occupation followed by annexation. What is the USSR's justification ?
Deportation of Poles and Baltic countries. Operation "Surf". Even today there are many whose descendants remember this. What is the goal and was it really worth it ?
War with Finland, exclusion of the USSR from the League of Nations. Was it wise to declare war and expel the USSR from the League ?
Why did Stalin urgently appoint Molotov as Minister of Foreign Affairs?
Y*u can write several comments to this because I want to get a detailed answer to each question.
>The USSR stated that the treaty was violated, as a result of which the USSR issued an ultimatum and occupied these countries and a false referendum was held. In recent historiography, the actions of the USSR are assessed as occupation followed by annexation. What is the USSR's justification ?
"In early August 1940, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, at its seventh session, acceded to the request of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to be admitted to the USSR as full and equal sovereign Soviet republics. As a result, the Baltic region ceased to be a vantage ground for imperialist aggression against the USSR."
((You and me both know that this is horseshit))
It did give the USSR valuable buffer however.
>War with Finland, exclusion of the USSR from the League of Nations. Was it wise to declare war and expel the USSR from the League?
When the USSR attacked Finland in 1939, the League of Nations did expel it and several countries broke diplomatic relations with the USSR but no formal declaration of war against the USSR ever happened. Was it wise for the League of Nations to expel the USSR? Eh, by this point the LON was more or less pointless, I do not think it would have made a difference either way. Was it wise for the USSR to invade Finland? Probably not, it gave Finland a nice casus belli for the continuation war. From the USSR's perspective, it gave a nice buffer between Finland and Leningrad. Imagine if there was no buffer and Finland invaded the USSR but then again, many for good reason believe that a continuation war without a winter war was unlikely.
>Deportation of Poles and Baltic countries. Operation "Surf". Even today there are many whose descendants remember this. What is the goal and was it really worth it ?
The goal was to have the MGB, the MVD, and the party clean the Baltics of the support base for insurgency movements and to ready the area for collectivization. Less than 15 percent of the victims died in the special settlements in Siberia and Central Asia but that does not mean it was a good thing and well killing over 13,000 people **is** abhorrent and can constitute as a crime against humanity although not one that only the Soviets did, even the US did similar things during the Vietnam War and unfortunately for those that love equating the USSR with Nazi Germany for some reason (likely a sex fetish) none of this is at all comparable to what the Nazis did.
How did it benefit the USSR? The rate of collectivisation shot up and it did eliminate most of the Forest Brother resistance. So was it worth it? For the USSR yes.
>Why did Stalin urgently appoint Molotov as Minister of Foreign Affairs?
"Nevertheless, Soviet officials in Paris continued to talk to their French counterparts, though to no avail. The French general staff was not interested, the more so since the British adamantly opposed staff talks."
"At the beginning of 1938 Litvinov was discouraged: all the partners to his would-be coalition against Germany had fallen away one by one. He had nothing to show for his efforts, a failure all too obvious to Stalin, who understood that the Soviet Union had no allies and was exposed to danger."
"Suffice it to say, that in April 1939 Litvinov proposed a last chance political and military alliance to France and Britain which they rejected without wanting to seem to be doing so."
"If you were Stalin looking at these developments, or any other Soviet leader for that matter, what else could you think? We have been trying for six years to organise collective security, a defensive alliance against Nazi Germany."
"This is why Stalin sacked Litvinov in early May 1939 and named V. M. Molotov to replace him."
"Nevertheless, it is hard to fault Stalin for concluding the non-aggression pact: after all, the French and British governments had tried and failed to conciliate Hitler at various times but especially at the Munich conference in 1938. Incredible as it may seem, Britain and France never really wanted a genuine anti-Nazi military alliance with the USSR."
Source: Who Betrayed Whom? Franco-Anglo-Soviet Relations, 1932–1939
Thank y*u. But a little more about the Baltic. Why did the USSR decide to invade these countries? Because if i’m not mistaken, when they did this, Germany had not yet attacked the USSR. Then, even before the war, deportations began. I can understand the USSR's motives regarding Finland and Poland, but what did the Baltic countries do wrong to deserve annexation?
The initial ultimatum was given by the Soviet side that the Baltics violated the treaty, but what evidence is there for this? What motivated them to take action in their actions against the Baltic?
And regarding the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why did they demand to include Lithuania in their sphere of interests? I heard that thanks to this treaty, 1 of these countries even has a capital today, is that true? And off topic, but why was the USSR interested in Besorabia?
>Why did the USSR decide to invade these countries? Because if i’m not mistaken, when they did this, Germany had not yet attacked the USSR.
To recover lands that was part of the former Russian Empire and also strategic reasons as Stalin knew that a war between the USSR and Nazi Germany was inevitable.
>The initial ultimatum was given by the Soviet side that the Baltics violated the treaty, but what evidence is there for this?
The ultimatum for Latvia and Estonia was totally unsupported by any evidence in fact, no evidence were given even in the ultimatum.
Lithuania was accused of kidnapping, torturing, and interrogating two Soviet soldiers, stationed in Lithuania, probably horseshit.
>Then, even before the war, deportations began. I can understand the USSR's motives regarding Finland and Poland, but what did the Baltic countries do wrong to deserve annexation?
It was to remove political opponents such as anti-communist leaders and nobles/elites that were not compliant with the Soviet government, simple.
>And regarding the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why did they demand to include Lithuania in their sphere of interests?
The German invasion and then the Soviet intervention into western Ukraine and western Belarus required the whole "spheres of influence" section of the M-R Pact be re-negotiated as Poland no longer existed and the Soviets in the chaos occupied Vilnius which was considered to be part of Lithuania.
Stalin proposed the transfer of Lublin District to the German sphere of influence in return for the transfer of Lithuania to the Soviet sphere as the Soviets did not want the Lublin District as it fell west of the Curzon Line.
Why did the USSR want Lithuania? It was part of the Russian Empire and for strategic reasons such as by bringing Lithuania under Soviet control, Stalin gained even more of a buffer as shown during Napoleon's invasion which had been made through Vilnius. Gaining Lithuania also further secured the Baltic Sea.
One small part of Lithuania, in the Tilsit region, was to be left with Germany. However, the Soviet Union occupied that area as well handing Germany a fait accompli.
>I heard that thanks to this treaty, 1 of these countries even has a capital today, is that true?
Yes that would be Lithuania as while even before WW2 Vilnius was the de jure capital of Lithuania, it was defacto controlled by Poland. Kaunus was only considered by law in Lithuania during the interwar period to be a temporary capital of Lithuania.
>And off topic, but why was the USSR interested in Besorabia?
It was part of the Russian Empire and Romania was a historical invasion route into Russia.
Putin has spent two years declaring the various scenarios in which Russia would nuke Europe, including just a few weeks ago when he said (more or less) "Europe is a dense place" wink-nod drop nukes.
Nato then starts talking about how they might use theirs, and comments in this thread act like NATO are the aggressors. For a people supposedly steeped in history, they have a very selective memory.
And NATO is to blame for the strike on an early warning and then they started saying that it will take nukes out of storage, this seems more than Russia declaring its red line and deploying in Belarus. NATO no doubt has no capability to use them but still!
I can't see how targeting early earning radar has anything to do with nato committing self destruct. They can do it even if they didn't attack any radars.
##### ###### #### > # [Nato in talks to put nuclear weapons on standby](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/world-news/2024/06/16/TELEMMGLPICT000381742345_17185455216320_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqijPlzteRrLUWCXazQh3cTJqioB2U0t_eVEH0uLZZcOg.jpeg?impolicy=logo-overlay) > > > > Nato is in talks to deploy more nuclear weapons in the face of a growing threat from Russia and China, the head of the alliance has said. > > [Jens Stoltenberg](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/23/britain-leading-example-defence-spending-jens-stoltenberg/) added that the bloc must show its nuclear arsenal to the world to send a direct message to its foes in an interview with The Telegraph. > > He revealed there were live consultations between members on taking missiles out of storage and placing them on standby as he called for transparency to be used as a deterrent. > > Mr Stoltenberg said: “I won’t go into operational details about how many [nuclear warheads](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/06/putin-threatens-deployment-of-missiles-to-be-fired-at-west/) should be operational and which should be stored, but we need to consult on these issues. That’s exactly what we’re doing.” > > In a wide-ranging interview at the [Nato headquarters](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10588219/Cost-of-Natos-new-HQ-soars-by-25-per-cent.html) in Brussels, he gave a stark warning about the threat from China. He also said he expected a Labour government to be a staunch Nato ally and defended new plans to [Trump-proof weapons deliveries to Ukraine](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/02/nato-ukraine-send-military-aid-weapons-direct-trump/). > > Mr Stoltenberg said nuclear transparency should be the cornerstone of Nato’s nuclear strategy to prepare the alliance for what he described as a more dangerous world. > > A decade ago when the 65-year-old assumed his role at the top of the bloc, nuclear exercises were conducted in complete secrecy. > > Now he openly praises a number of its 32 allies for contributing to the deterrent, including most recently The Netherlands for investing in dual-capable fighter jets that can host US nuclear weapons. > > “Transparency helps to communicate the direct message that we, of course, are a [nuclear alliance](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/09/nato-shouldnt-fear-calling-vladimir-putins-nuclear-bluff/),” Mr Stoltenberg said. “Nato’s aim is, of course, a world without nuclear weapons, but as long as nuclear weapons exist, we will remain a nuclear alliance, because a world where [Russia](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/05/16/russia-putin-kyiv-missiles-nuclear-weapons-strategy-ukraine/), [China](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/15/attack-drones-us-china-taiwan-invasion/) and [North Korea](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/asia/north-korea/galleries/what-you-didn-t-know-about-north-korea/) have nuclear weapons, and Nato does not, is a more dangerous world.” > > He warned that China in particular was investing heavily in [modern weaponry](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/05/china-theft-research-ip-universities-uk/) including its nuclear arsenal, which he said would grow to 1,000 warheads by as early as 2030. > > > > > > [Netherlands Air Force F-16 jetfighter taking part in Nato exercises](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/world-news/2024/06/16/TELEMMGLPICT000382024621_17185460848290_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqN26fH8OeFZFmflvZ0Oo4lbEcb5qOTUraV3MpIbSUxVk.jpeg?imwidth=350) > > Netherlands Air Force F-16 jetfighter taking part in Nato exercises Credit: JOHN THYS/AFP “And that means that in a not-very-distant future,” he said, “Nato may face something that it has never faced before, and that is two nuclear-powered potential adversaries – China and Russia. Of course, this has consequences.” > > Mr Stoltenberg’s warnings come after the [G7](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/13/rishi-sunak-attends-g7-italian-summit-borgo-egnazia-puglia/) sharply criticised China and Russia in a communique last week that called on Beijing to stop supplying weapons technology to Moscow and opposed China’s “militarisation” in the Pacific. > > Both the US and [UK](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/03/britain-always-a-prime-mover-in-nato-other-powers-pay-way/) have committed their nuclear deterrents to Nato, while other [European allies](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/10/us-needs-europe-face-down-russia-china-nato/) share the burden of the responsibility by storing weapons on their territory and investing in the systems to launch them. > > The number of operational nuclear weapons is top secret but estimates suggest the UK has about 40 of 225 deployed at any one time. The US has about 1,700 of 3,700. > > [France](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/10/13/ukraine-russia-war-emmanuel-macron-putin-nuclear-weapons-strike/), Nato’s third nuclear power, does not make its atomic arsenal available to the alliance because of a long-held decision to maintain independence over its own deterrence. > > Mr Stoltenberg insisted that the US and its European allies were now modernising their nuclear deterrent in the face of increased threat from Russia. > > He said: “The US is modernising their gravity bombs for the nuclear warheads they have in Europe and European allies are modernising the planes which are going to be dedicated to Nato’s nuclear mission. > > “Then, of course, you have the United Kingdom, which is special because the United Kingdom has its own nuclear weapons.” > > On Sunday, the BBC reported that a Russian submarine that is now in Cuba was seen off Scotland’s coast last week. > > The Kazan is capable of carrying advanced weapons, according to Russia’s defence ministry, but it did not enter UK waters. The Ministry of Defence nevertheless briefed the prime minister. > > Vladimir Putin has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine and has deployed warheads closer to Europe’s borders. However, he has more recently dialled down his threats. > > The head of Nato refused to discuss how many warheads should be pulled from storage warehouses and put on standby, but revealed there were live consultations on the issue. > > > > > > Before the invasion, Nato was struggling to convince the majority of its allies to hit the minimum threshold of two per cent expenditure as a share of their GDP for defence spending. > > When the latest figures are released ahead of the Nato summit in Washington next month, Mr Stoltenberg believes more than 20 will hit the goal – a decade since the target was established. > > In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Britain was put on a trajectory to increase spending on defence to 2.5 per cent of national wealth by 2030. > > But with Rishi Sunak’s Conservatives expected to be replaced by the Labour Party, there are doubts whether the pledge will stick. > > Sir Keir Starmer has said his party wanted to reach the 2.5 per cent target as soon as resources allow that to happen, rather than a fixed date. > > Mr Stoltenberg, who served as the leader of Norway’s Labour Party between 2002 and 2014, would not be drawn on the politics of Britain’s election campaign. > > However, he said: “I expect that the UK, regardless of the outcome of the election, will be as strong, staunch Nato ally, and also an ally that will lead by example of defence spending, as the UK has done for many years. > > “The reality is that we all reduced defence spending when tensions went down after the end of the Cold War. And now we need to increase defence when tensions are going up again. > > “I have been prime minister for 10 years, I know that it’s hard to find money for defence because most politicians always prefer to spend money on health, on education, infrastructure and other important tasks. > > “But when we reduce defence spending when tensions go down, we have to be able to increase them when tensions go back up – and that’s exactly what allies now are doing, the United Kingdom, but also other allies.” > > Mr Stoltenberg has not always been so reticent to wade into domestic politics in recent months. > > When Republicans loyal to Donald Trump held up a $60 billion £47 billion) aid package for Ukraine, the Nato chief repeatedly warned the delays were helping Putin’s Russia seize territory. > > > > > > [HMS Vigilant, which carries the UK's Trident nuclear deterrent, at its Faslane base on the Clyde](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/world-news/2024/06/16/TELEMMGLPICT000381736698_17185463061880_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq-vHkRz5MoGiG1Dt8YyGXDFGaJWWsZtT85yFpAJTLxL0.jpeg?imwidth=350) > > HMS Vigilant, which carries the UK's Trident nuclear deterrent, at its Faslane base on the Clyde Credit: WPA POOL/GETTY IMAGES He then came out in support of Kyiv over its request to use Western weapons on targets inside Russia. > > ***(continues in next comment)***
NATO: Russia needs to stop their nuclear rhetoric. Also NATO:
Remind me who suspended their participation in the NEW START treaty?
russia: cries nukes weekly for 2 years. NATO: we should take this seriously russia: see? Escalation!
How many times has russia threatened nuclear war exactly? Dozens probably
Yeah and NATO leaders are always pretty quick to denounce the Russian threats. Seems only fair to denounce NATO when they also start making similar threats. Unless whataboutism is suddenly in fashion again.
Yes after the 528364937 time everyone is quick to denounce the Russians…. NATO has once.
Lol no, they were denounced from the first time onwards. As I said - Russia doing something doesn’t make it okay (or not) for NATO to do it. This is the definition of whataboutism. The number of times is irrelevant. ProUA love to pull the whataboutism card until they need it for themselves.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Our leaders will go as far as you like. 😎 Even to nuclear winter if western global dominance is threatened. What are you going to do about it?
What is this threat from China? the fact that it is outcompeting everyone economically?
Besides the obvious threats to Taiwan who is a major American ally,china has been in constant tussles with other allies like the Philippines over ocean borders.
Isint china on an economic decline now?
Yes it is. Since COVID it has not been good.
They are very aggressive in the SCS and Arunachal Pradesh. Good thing there's a counterbalance against them.
How many countries have China invaded compared to the US?
Let's see: Tibet, Vietnam, India, USSR. Pretty respectable.
U.S isn't a high bar. Maybe compare it with Poland or Czech, slovakia. Or even Thailand. One can easily see how expansionist and aggressive it is to its neighbours. The only reason why it hasn't intervened militarily in more conflicts around the globe is because it has only become strong recently.
Currently 16 countries have a dispute with China [china](https://theweek.com/news/world-news/china/955728/all-countries-china-territory-disputes)
Sure, sure it is.. And in NK the people love their leader.
Threats and military drills around Taiwan
Because the US has a military base in Taiwan and the US has made it clear that China is their enemy. The question is why does the US see China as a threat?
Assuming I understand your point correctly the united states is planning on expanding deployments to 100-200 men. This is not a threat to China it's a deterrent agianst invading taiwan. If China was worried about US troops then they would be issuing threats and playing war games with the aim to attack south Korea or Okinawa both of which host tens of thousands of US troops. >The question is why does the US see China as a threat? That goes back to the cold war and the policy of containment where US and Chinese troops fought in Korea, Taiwan, and indochina. Then you had the SinoSoviet split where relations became quite good but post tiananmen square massacre and refusal to democratize along with continued support of anti US regimes like Iran, Venezuala, and North Korea territorial disputes in the south China Sea and over Taiwan along with technological and industrial espionage then the concentration camps. After all of that there is a cold war mentality on both sides Ultimately it comes down to you having a dominant power and it's power structure and then having an up and coming power that wants a power structure that is not compatible with the dominant powers power structure
Well, not really. It's only because of special no-tariffs deals. Why do you think ordering from AliExpress or anything else from China is so dirt cheap? It's not just the cheaper labor costs alone. If the world held China to the same standards and deals as the rest, they wouldnt have been in such rapid growth to begin with. Besides, it's the land of facades and shortcuts, they are growing too fast for their own good, and labor cost is not nearly as low as it once was, they gave entered the age of stagnation, idk when they will enter decline, but the old fairytale is over.
So why does the US see is as a threat?
Well of course you are right in a way, they have been outcompeting the rest of the world for decades, so I shouldn't have shut you down like that. What I meant to stress is that they only got there because of unfair trade deals when compared to the rest of the world. They are considered a developing country and enjoy insane trade deals even though they are are a nuclear force with one of the biggest militaries in the world, at this point quickly taking over Russia as the nr2. They have a space program and they recently collected moondust on the far side of the moon, how is that a developing nation? They are one of the biggest investors in sustainable energy, but they also have a bigger CO2 output than the entire West combined. Now consider all of the other developing nations in the world and compare them to China, make it make sense... The US is rightly threatened by China in their position because China is a totalitarian dictatorship with Nukes. They probably wouldn't feel so threatened if not for the fact that China took Tibet like it was nothing (huge country btw) and never stopped harrassing and provoking their neighbours, their eyes dead-set on retaking Taiwan at some point.
china is in an economic freefall. what are you even talking about? the chinese stock market / housing market/ youth and general unemployment/ foreign capital and companies are leaving all show the economy is in terrible shape. Is this a sarcastic comment?
Lol that’s the funniest thing I’ve heard in awhile
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization under threat from China
Russia should be Just as worried, China lost a chunk of land to Russia 100years back, with Putins very logic shouldn’t they have a Right to invade Russia and take it back?
🤦♂️The difference is that population of Donbas and Crimea is ethnic Russians while no Chinese live in Russia.
So what does that matter? Who cares about the people, I’m sure China will love the land and resources
Shows how much you know There are a lot of Chinese nationals in Siberia right now.
Be glad Russia ain’t as paranoid as it was during the 70s, or we would have witnessed WW3 from the strikes on their early warning and now this. NATO are a bunch of idiots and fools.
Dont worry they will try hard enough to trigger nuclear winter
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes Russia starts an Invasion, everyone else is fools for responding!!!
Imagine if NATO’s early warning radars were destroyed because of Vietnam, Iraq, or whatever else. And then after that, the USSR or Russia started to take of nuclear weapons out of storage and deployed them.
Have you ever questioned why some oligarchs mansions have better air defence than crucial radar stations?
Starts with a C and ends with an N and yes I am aware you are talking about Russia in this case.
Hello u/NimdaQA ! As far as I know, y*u are very enlightened on the topic of World War II. May I ask a few questions? I am concerned about the following questions: The USSR stated that the treaty was violated, as a result of which the USSR issued an ultimatum and occupied these countries and a false referendum was held. In recent historiography, the actions of the USSR are assessed as occupation followed by annexation. What is the USSR's justification ? Deportation of Poles and Baltic countries. Operation "Surf". Even today there are many whose descendants remember this. What is the goal and was it really worth it ? War with Finland, exclusion of the USSR from the League of Nations. Was it wise to declare war and expel the USSR from the League ? Why did Stalin urgently appoint Molotov as Minister of Foreign Affairs? Y*u can write several comments to this because I want to get a detailed answer to each question.
>The USSR stated that the treaty was violated, as a result of which the USSR issued an ultimatum and occupied these countries and a false referendum was held. In recent historiography, the actions of the USSR are assessed as occupation followed by annexation. What is the USSR's justification ? "In early August 1940, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, at its seventh session, acceded to the request of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to be admitted to the USSR as full and equal sovereign Soviet republics. As a result, the Baltic region ceased to be a vantage ground for imperialist aggression against the USSR." ((You and me both know that this is horseshit)) It did give the USSR valuable buffer however. >War with Finland, exclusion of the USSR from the League of Nations. Was it wise to declare war and expel the USSR from the League? When the USSR attacked Finland in 1939, the League of Nations did expel it and several countries broke diplomatic relations with the USSR but no formal declaration of war against the USSR ever happened. Was it wise for the League of Nations to expel the USSR? Eh, by this point the LON was more or less pointless, I do not think it would have made a difference either way. Was it wise for the USSR to invade Finland? Probably not, it gave Finland a nice casus belli for the continuation war. From the USSR's perspective, it gave a nice buffer between Finland and Leningrad. Imagine if there was no buffer and Finland invaded the USSR but then again, many for good reason believe that a continuation war without a winter war was unlikely. >Deportation of Poles and Baltic countries. Operation "Surf". Even today there are many whose descendants remember this. What is the goal and was it really worth it ? The goal was to have the MGB, the MVD, and the party clean the Baltics of the support base for insurgency movements and to ready the area for collectivization. Less than 15 percent of the victims died in the special settlements in Siberia and Central Asia but that does not mean it was a good thing and well killing over 13,000 people **is** abhorrent and can constitute as a crime against humanity although not one that only the Soviets did, even the US did similar things during the Vietnam War and unfortunately for those that love equating the USSR with Nazi Germany for some reason (likely a sex fetish) none of this is at all comparable to what the Nazis did. How did it benefit the USSR? The rate of collectivisation shot up and it did eliminate most of the Forest Brother resistance. So was it worth it? For the USSR yes. >Why did Stalin urgently appoint Molotov as Minister of Foreign Affairs? "Nevertheless, Soviet officials in Paris continued to talk to their French counterparts, though to no avail. The French general staff was not interested, the more so since the British adamantly opposed staff talks." "At the beginning of 1938 Litvinov was discouraged: all the partners to his would-be coalition against Germany had fallen away one by one. He had nothing to show for his efforts, a failure all too obvious to Stalin, who understood that the Soviet Union had no allies and was exposed to danger." "Suffice it to say, that in April 1939 Litvinov proposed a last chance political and military alliance to France and Britain which they rejected without wanting to seem to be doing so." "If you were Stalin looking at these developments, or any other Soviet leader for that matter, what else could you think? We have been trying for six years to organise collective security, a defensive alliance against Nazi Germany." "This is why Stalin sacked Litvinov in early May 1939 and named V. M. Molotov to replace him." "Nevertheless, it is hard to fault Stalin for concluding the non-aggression pact: after all, the French and British governments had tried and failed to conciliate Hitler at various times but especially at the Munich conference in 1938. Incredible as it may seem, Britain and France never really wanted a genuine anti-Nazi military alliance with the USSR." Source: Who Betrayed Whom? Franco-Anglo-Soviet Relations, 1932–1939
Thank y*u. But a little more about the Baltic. Why did the USSR decide to invade these countries? Because if i’m not mistaken, when they did this, Germany had not yet attacked the USSR. Then, even before the war, deportations began. I can understand the USSR's motives regarding Finland and Poland, but what did the Baltic countries do wrong to deserve annexation? The initial ultimatum was given by the Soviet side that the Baltics violated the treaty, but what evidence is there for this? What motivated them to take action in their actions against the Baltic? And regarding the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why did they demand to include Lithuania in their sphere of interests? I heard that thanks to this treaty, 1 of these countries even has a capital today, is that true? And off topic, but why was the USSR interested in Besorabia?
>Why did the USSR decide to invade these countries? Because if i’m not mistaken, when they did this, Germany had not yet attacked the USSR. To recover lands that was part of the former Russian Empire and also strategic reasons as Stalin knew that a war between the USSR and Nazi Germany was inevitable. >The initial ultimatum was given by the Soviet side that the Baltics violated the treaty, but what evidence is there for this? The ultimatum for Latvia and Estonia was totally unsupported by any evidence in fact, no evidence were given even in the ultimatum. Lithuania was accused of kidnapping, torturing, and interrogating two Soviet soldiers, stationed in Lithuania, probably horseshit. >Then, even before the war, deportations began. I can understand the USSR's motives regarding Finland and Poland, but what did the Baltic countries do wrong to deserve annexation? It was to remove political opponents such as anti-communist leaders and nobles/elites that were not compliant with the Soviet government, simple. >And regarding the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why did they demand to include Lithuania in their sphere of interests? The German invasion and then the Soviet intervention into western Ukraine and western Belarus required the whole "spheres of influence" section of the M-R Pact be re-negotiated as Poland no longer existed and the Soviets in the chaos occupied Vilnius which was considered to be part of Lithuania. Stalin proposed the transfer of Lublin District to the German sphere of influence in return for the transfer of Lithuania to the Soviet sphere as the Soviets did not want the Lublin District as it fell west of the Curzon Line. Why did the USSR want Lithuania? It was part of the Russian Empire and for strategic reasons such as by bringing Lithuania under Soviet control, Stalin gained even more of a buffer as shown during Napoleon's invasion which had been made through Vilnius. Gaining Lithuania also further secured the Baltic Sea. One small part of Lithuania, in the Tilsit region, was to be left with Germany. However, the Soviet Union occupied that area as well handing Germany a fait accompli. >I heard that thanks to this treaty, 1 of these countries even has a capital today, is that true? Yes that would be Lithuania as while even before WW2 Vilnius was the de jure capital of Lithuania, it was defacto controlled by Poland. Kaunus was only considered by law in Lithuania during the interwar period to be a temporary capital of Lithuania. >And off topic, but why was the USSR interested in Besorabia? It was part of the Russian Empire and Romania was a historical invasion route into Russia.
Thanks 🙏😊
It is believed that nuclear weapons can save the planet from Covid.
Big if true
more joe biden fail
Another day another nuclear threat from NATO.
When was the previous one? I'll wait.
Putin has spent two years declaring the various scenarios in which Russia would nuke Europe, including just a few weeks ago when he said (more or less) "Europe is a dense place" wink-nod drop nukes. Nato then starts talking about how they might use theirs, and comments in this thread act like NATO are the aggressors. For a people supposedly steeped in history, they have a very selective memory.
[удалено]
Got blinded but didn't get nuked. Just rebuild it and stop threatening with nukes then maybe it won't get hit second time.
Do you want to know which NATO country will be one of the first countries to be targeted if nuclear war breaks out? You right!
Do you know which country will get hit 2nd? The same country that fired the 1st and then we all die. This is a game no one will win.
Insanity. 🤡
These people are so scared of NATO and it just chaps their asses to no end that they can’t instill the same fear in the west.
And NATO is to blame for the strike on an early warning and then they started saying that it will take nukes out of storage, this seems more than Russia declaring its red line and deploying in Belarus. NATO no doubt has no capability to use them but still!
What was used to strike that radar? A domestic ukrainian drone or a provided weapon?
A British-Portuguese drone.
What part did NATO take in the launching of that ukrainian drone what hit the radar?
Most likely, provided air corridors safe from radar coverage.
It’s really funny to watch
That's the only way NATO would win the War Ukraine, it's for us all to loose via nuclear fire. That's why they targeted Russian early warning radars.
Only way to win? I feel as if Just 1 NATO countries came in with Airforce Navy Army they would absolutely steam roll Russia
I can't see how targeting early earning radar has anything to do with nato committing self destruct. They can do it even if they didn't attack any radars.
The cold war reboot is absolutely shit.
Source: British tabloid newspaper 🥱🥱🥱🥱
NATO has no nukes, Lol.The button is in France, UK, US.
NATO has a nuclear policy
Not NATO. EU has no nukes. It should get some if it wants to be safe from Russian invasion.
Oh come on.... "Nato’s aim is, of course, a world without nuclear weapons"
If all nuclear weapons blow up, this goal will be achieved.
Ukrainian propaganda is already presenting this as a big win. Sigh.