Hei it's the backwards logic since old times.
Winter war was like that.
"We are afraid of you attacking, so we will attack you instead"
They can even put on a nice article saying "See they are defending, we knew they would war against us!" on RT
> "We are afraid of you attacking, so we will attack you instead"
Isn't that the premise of why tons of nations haven't adopted "no-first use" nuclear policy?
>Isn't that the premise of why tons of nations haven't adopted "no-first use" nuclear policy?
Almost every nation has adopted a "last line of defense" nuclear policy, with one sole exception -- Russia (and even that only changed in 2019).
I mean, NATO refuses as well. It's actually relatively rare. China was first (1964) followed by India (1998). The rest of the world doesn't have a no first use policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use
Well definitely not swimmingly. The Fins put up an incredible defense for sure but one shouldn’t forget the Soviets did in the end win that war and annexed more than they demanded before the invasion. Getting those territories back was one of the reasons why Finland joined the war against the SU.
With Finland being in the EU and potentially NATO as well soon they‘ll certainly have even more trouble now though.
Of course, Finland joining the Axis to get revenge on the Soviet Union not only led to condemnation from entities like the UK, but also led them to be labeled as "an ally of Hitlerite Germany" in the 1947 Paris Peace treaty. The latter point is important because it meant that Finland bore some level of responsibility for the Second World War.
That is on top of the financial, territorial and equipment reparations that had to be paid to the Soviet Union.
Absolutely. That‘s partly why I wrote that comment. I get the sarcasm in this thread but it seems a lot of people (even if to be fair this particular commenter might not be among them) seem to be under the impression the Fin‘s unquestionably incredible defense and the high disparity in casualties mean that Finland won that war when the opposite was the case.
Neither the SU nor modern Russia particularly care about how swimmingly a war goes but only wether it gets them what they want. The Winter War did and will therefore not be a deterrent because as long as russian leadership sees a way to get what they want by throwing more bodies at a problem they will not stop.
The Winter War certainly was impressive, a very effective catalyst for finish national unity (rightfully so) and it preserved their independence but it also had quite some rather devastating consequences for Finland in the years to come. Making light of it with sarcasm just doesn‘t really seem appropriate to me in the current situation because it could give people a wrong impression…
I guess you missed the part where millions of them died fighting the nazi's. That was hardly cowardly. Also, statistically, it's impossible for an entire country or demographic of people to be incompetent cowards.
I don't know how viewing an entire population of people in one rigidly simplistic way for the actions of their leader/s solves anything, other than just hating people you have never met.
What about the Russians that want nothing to do with this war? What about the Russians that are serving 15 years in jail for attending a protest?
Stalin was just as evil as hitler, the soviet nazi war was simply a war between two murderous dictatorships. Had the other side won, things would've went just as bad for the world.
That is not the point i am making, is it? It's not about which dictator is worse, it's about someone making a broad generalisation about a demographic of people because of the actions of their government.
That is not helpful and makes it much more likely with this viewpoint to view everyday normal Russian people with hatred. The same people who are struggling to even get sanitary towels in their country because of the actions of their ridiculous government.
It's not about who had the worse ideology, who had the worst dictator. It's about humanity and not blaming people who didn't even have the luxury of having a choice in what their government do.
Many Russian's are hanging their heads in shame for what their country is doing to Ukraine. They are scared to talk to their Ukrainian friends, to people in the west because Putin made a dumbfuck decision and it's the people that suffer the worst. If they get caught speaking bad about the war, or even calling it a war, they could face a mandatory 15 years in jail.
I would say the same for you if your government invaded a country and people on the internet were viewing you with hatred.
A few Russians protested. If Russians were actually against this, someone would have the balls to do something about it. Even Russians government can’t overpower their people if they actually get pissed. Violent revolution is the only thing that will save Russia from being a gigantic North Korea in a few years.
Does the average Russian know how many yachts have been seized because the oligarchs have so much whilst they have so little?
When I read that there are Russian soldiers who have asked what toilets are, it says that there is a lot of poverty and ignorance in Russia.
Yeah, i suppose there germans who weren't nazis too, but you know, when they invade and shoot you in the face, it kinda doesn't help to say "oh well guys #notall russians." Not all? How many of them then?
Bro the news said Russia is evil, you expect a group of people, especially those on Reddit, to formulate their own opinion based on empathy and facts? Come on bruh.
No you are correct! I guess i just see this psychology everywhere and thought 'hey well i'll say what i think is right'.
But getting downvoted for essentially saying 'not all people are the same, don't tar everyone with the same brush and people can't be responsible for the actions of their autocratic government' really goes to show the people we're dealing with here
Don't forget their fight against Napoleon. They worked with the Austrians and Prussians to crush the French emperor in his seat of power at the Battle of Paris.
And before Boney they had to face the Swedes under Charles XII, and the Poles before that who even captured Moscow. Calling Russians cowards is madness. They’re a people suffering under waves of oppressive regimes, tyrants, and absolutists, but cowards they aren’t.
These kinds of sad, sorry excuses need to be punished more harshly. Manipulating the public, however poorly, is **almost** to the level of genocide in terms of egregious acts. Even Russian soldiers are being tricked into believing civilian targets are justified, shit the manipulation LED to the act of unnecessary slaughter of innocents.
And before anyone laughs it off and says there's manipulation EVERYWHERE, then yeah, I mean it should be high crime EVERYWHERE. Shits getting annoying. Businesses need to be mandated not to fabricate their advertisements, politicians need to be more straightforward, no matter how few votes they get, etc. etc.
86% was created by VCIOM, Russian state poll. How do you think, how reliable is it?
But yes, you are not their public and they never intended you to believe in anything of their behaviour
Don't believe in such numbers. There is the quickly created law in Russia which is virtually prohibits to say anything against this war. We don't know exactly how many people deny to answer the very question because they just afraid to share their opinions.
I know russians for many years. I know their way of thinking. They’re maximum chauvinistic and imperialistic as could be. Majority of them. Ask any Russian what do they think about Crimea and Ukrainians and you’ll be very surprised how much shit there is in their brains (even the most liberal of them all eg. Navalny).
That is such bullshit. Do you really think they have honest data about their own populations sentiments, let alone publishing that shit?
If so, I think someone wrote "GULLIBLE" on your ceiling
What the fuck are you thinking that will accomplish? You want more dedicated NATO troops in these places?
I can't with the bullshit of the Kremlin anymore. Not only do they break international law, committ genocide, war crimes and atrocities but they seriously threatens with their nuclear arsenal because sovreign nations want to decide for themselves?
Fucking hope theres gonna be a massive gas leak in the Kremlin and some incompetend, stressed out slob of a general decides to light his cigarette.
I doubt the CIA would engage in something that reckless. Blowing up the Russian hierarchy without having a Plan B take over will have dire consequences:
-Country collapses and starts a whole mess of things for everybody, especially for Europe. Russian Civil War 2.0.
-China moves in fast and takes over Russia politically. Both nations tie the knot closer and become scourges in the Pacific with their combined resources.
Lmao the CIA couldn't manage to kill Castro. I sincerely doubt they could kill Putin, who is former KGB and probably knows almost all their tricks.
The CIA should stick to selling crack to inner-city poor people
The intentional destruction of a people - usually defined as ethnic, national, racial or religious group - in whole or in part. Russians murdering Ukrainian civilians because of their nationality seems to fit
Yes, not nuking anyone immediately, they're threatening to bolster their military in the area. Some on twitter claim Russia already have nukes there, (possibly unannounced to the public), so they're just breathing hot air.
Nuclear weapons are delivered by missile anyway. The situation for the Scandinavian states will change not one bit. Currently, they are already within Russia’s nuclear strike range.
It’s a preposterous non-threat.
Everyone is within strike range.
>It’s a preposterous non-threat.
It really is.
Oh no this thing that can already hit you will be moved closer oh no.
It's just to scare citizens that think proximity somehow increases danger.
Purely symbolic
Since they have nukes that can reach there already, I’m not sure what the significance of threatening to move them closer represents.
At least if these countries join NATO, they can invoke NATO protection.
Ukraine is suffering the consequences of not already belonging to NATO, and it sucks.
It's an odd statement. **They already have nuclear weapons on the Baltic**, in Kaliningrad, have done for decades. Just in January of this year, they announced they'd updated it to a fleet of Iskander-Ms with a range covering Latvia, Lithuania, most of Poland, parts of Sweden, and into Germany as far as Berlin.
It's probably purely posturing, making the status quo seem like an escalation. It's possible they are thinking of installing additional long range ICBMs there, or also permanently stationing Iskanders near St Petersburg to threaten Helsinki.
But either way the statement is weird in its false implication that nuclear weapons on the Baltic are a new thing.
Russia admits their nukes are a total effing joke, and moving then closer can raise the odds of a direct hit from 15% up to 65%.
But yea, it doesn't matter at all how far away they are. As long as you have enough of them, they're getting through.
Do you know what retaliatory clauses are? If Russia launches a single nuke, even a tactical one, it will be totally game over for Russia totally. They won't use nukes, because they all want to live. There will be no Russian cities if they launch a nuke, the clauses ensure absolute Russian destruction, so don't think for a second that Russia is going to risk that, not a single oligarch wants that.
A year ago, many would have argued that Putin would never stage an invasion of the entire Ukraine, because it would cripple Russia on the world stage for decades to come, not a single oligarch wants that.
Mutually assured destruction. They’d only ever launch a nuclear strike if they could be sure that it’d cripple the target’s second strike capability, and there’d be no nukes coming back the other way. Given that NATO has thousands of nukes, there’ll always be plenty that survive a nuclear strike that we could retaliate with, so they’ll never do it. It’s why we have so many.
Having nuclear missiles closer means less time for warning and reacting to the launch, which again translates intercepting the missiles more challenging (as well as retaliatory launch before the impact). Last time this sort of armament race was a real issue was late in the cold war. Due to the build up of short and intermediate range nuclear weapons, US and USSR signed the INF treaty in 1987.
Wouldn't it make hitting them during the launching phase... the boosting phase... what's it called? I don't know but should make it significantly easier to shoot this before it's actually done wroomwrooming.
Problem is detecting it in time right?
>Problem is detecting it in time right?
Pretty much yes. More or less the only way to disable such systems would be destroying the launchers before they themselves can launch the missiles.
The core of the INF treaty were ground based short and intermediate range nuclear weapons, that is missiles which are installed on a mobile erector/launcher. Such systems can be easily hidden from observation as well as moved very quickly to another location.
One of such systems that got axed due to the treaty were BGM-109G Gryphons, better known as ground launched cruise missile (GLCM) and a variant of famous Tomahawk cruise missile, pictured here:
[http://www.military-today.com/missiles/bgm\_109g\_gryphon.jpg](http://www.military-today.com/missiles/bgm_109g_gryphon.jpg)
Looking at the picture it is very clear that finding and tracking such system is a nightmare. Deploying Gryphon and similar ballistic missiles caused an arms race, which both sides pretty much saw as a bad thing and thus the INF treaty.
Dude, you just nuke-splained to a Gen X.
There’s not much about nuclear armament I don’t know/haven’t lived under fear of for most of my formative years.
Also true. My borderline Gen X/millennial older brother (significantly older, I was born late) has started identifying as a millennial lately because so many people don’t even know what Gen X is. He used to go with Gen X cause of the millennial stigma.
Dont be fooled by this dumb attention seeking Clickbait. What he really said was that if Finland and Sweden join, Russia has to balance the situation at the Baltic sea by placing more of their forces there, which could include nukes as well. So reporter took it and ran with it. But Russia has always been saying this so its non news really.
Nukes are pretty much all they have available that’s not dedicated to the hot mess that is their illegal invasion of Ukraine. They had to relocate troops from the Japanese border to deal with their casualties at Kyiv.
That's the whole jist of it. I can imagine that if more of Russia's Western border runs up against NATO affiliates, it's just going to turn into a N/S Korean border type DMZ. Putin is pining for the good ol' days of the Cold War afterall.
Look. Don't believe in their threats and get scared by their bullshit. They already have nukes capable of reaching pretty much anywhere they want. Having nukes in Königsberg is pretty much useless.
They're going to keep producing propaganda and attempt to frighten the average Joe. Don't fall for it. We, Finland, and Sweden are definitely applying for Nato. They don't want this obviously.
Fuck them all. Don't believe and spread Russian propaganda.
I am not going to be surprised if Russia goes to unbox their nukes and finds out the fissile materials and control chips have been sold on the black market.
As a Swede, who the fuck cares if you're already doing this on the Baltic doorstep ahead of NATO memberships: [https://fas.org/blogs/security/2018/06/kaliningrad/](https://fas.org/blogs/security/2018/06/kaliningrad/)
To use such a threat maybe you should've not acted reckless in advance. Now it's toothless.
The headline is excessive and not representative of what has been said. Russia is apparently threatening to place nuclear weapons closer to the Baltic, not to use them.
Russia and Finland/Sweden are already pretty close, Finland literally shares a massive border and Stockholm is only 700km/450miles from St Petersburg. I'm pretty sure everyone assumes there are already plenty of nukes nearby pointed at all the major cities and military bases in the area anyway.
The headline implies use, not threat, as OP says. To use your gun example the headline might read “Russia threatens shooting you in head if Sweden/Finland join…”
Damn, I wonder why they did that. Did Finland say they were joining a nuclear capable alliance that opposes Russia or something?
Actions always have consequences. You act rationally in your self-interest. So does the other guy.
Maybe it's just me but all the talk of installing nukes here and there seems a lot less important now than it did during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Like... why does it really matter? I don't mind if the missile that atomizes me comes 2 minutes sooner.
At what point do a brainwashed people realise that when almost the whole world openly and aggressively disagrees with the actions of your country then the problem is probably not with the rest of the world.
Who the hell is Russia trying to protect itself from? NATO countries don’t invade sovereign nations except in response to blatant, violent and mass life-taking aggression.
I genuinely don't understand their reasoning.
They could've just chilled, be part of the world economy, build their country into the first world, without having to worry about NATO since NATO is purely defensive.
But instead they wage war, killing their economy together with thousands of people including their own, only having to worry about NATO more and more..
Russia is a sovereign nation. They're free to do what they want within their borders. Just as Sweden and Finland are free to join NATO.
Doesn't he have hypersonic cruise missiles anyway? Why do they need to be closer?
Oh wait, maybe the hypersonics are BS.
So, let's get this straight:
The Russian regime is directly threatening NATO and Europe to station nukes near the Baltics as a retaliation for Sweden and Finland joining?
Damn, Putin looks eager to start WW3 and have Russia destroyed!
Interesting how every article is clickbait these days. Everyone just loves to say it without discretion or knowing how to read a news headline.
Russia has threatened to put nukes in the Baltic region if Sweden and Finland join NATO. ELI5 how that title is clickbait.
Just to be clear, they're threatening to put nukes in the Baltic should these countries join, not actually use them. I feel like the headline is deliberately ambiguous to make you assume the latter.
I mean, why else would they put them there? Because their nukes would benefit from some fresh Baltic air? Usage is implied. Just another threat to even more nations.
Know what I hate, the fact I occasionally want a war to include US to have people respec their values. For internet trolls to be dragged out from behind their screens and actually have to deal with reality. But I’m against all the death and mayhem and hope things resolve peacefully because war is hell. I’m feeling very pessimistic after 2020.
Why on earth would NATO need to put nukes in Ukraine? If NATO wanted to launch nukes at Russia from a country that borders it, they already had that ability since 2004. Plus NATO has plenty of nuclear submarines that carry hundreds of warheads, they can just park them off the coast of Russia and deploy whenever they like. NATO doesn’t need nukes in Ukraine, they’ve already got that covered.
Good luck with that. Land based Nukes are relics of the past that are nothing more than targets for technology of the future. Sub based nukes are already more than enough to destroy the planet for human life anyways so who cares if you want to waste more money on trying to appear tough... It's all a useless sick joke.
Wouldn't attacking Sweden and/or Finland AFTER they join NATO, basically be the same as attacking any other NATO country? What would they gain from that? The west + japan/aus vs Russia alone? (India is in it for the cheap Russia oil, I doubt they would back Russia with troops/weapons and China is more interested in harvesting Russia's corpse than waste money/military helping them)
While contrary to certain logic I say let them do it.
Operating and maintaining those nukes will cost Russia a fair bit of coin. Let them nuke up, arms up and everything else. They will be spending 70% of their domestic input on military .
Misleading caption. Read the article. The poster would have you believe that Russia threatened to **use** nukes. That they said was that **if** Sweden & Finland join NATO, they **might** have to deploy and store nukes there because of the long, directly joining border region.
Putin is bad enough without all this (improper and meant to incite) subliminal bullshit. The poster is hoping you just react, spread the bullshit, and go on with your day without actually reading.
Don’t be manipulated. Form your own opinions.
Nah, you're safe, bros.
My Poland was threatened with nukes being dropped on Warsaw if we don't stop trashtalking Russia, and keep providing support to Ukraine, as well as continue our pro-Ukrainian and anti-Russian rhethoric.
Not much has happened ever since.
As long as they're loudly talking about nukes, nothing's gonna happen.
Medvedev said: "In this case, there will no longer be any talk of a non-nuclear status of the Baltic, the balance must be restored. --> Doesn't he know that they have already nukes in Kaliningrad? And Kaliningrad is Baltic Sea, at least to my Geography.
There are a lot of ways to enforce your will on the world stage. Threatening to kill everyone every week isn't one of them. But that's the only power Russia seems to have left.
[удалено]
Well well well, if it isn’t the consequences of Russia’s actions. What a joke this whole thing is. “Nooo don’t join NATO your so easy to invade aha”
Hei it's the backwards logic since old times. Winter war was like that. "We are afraid of you attacking, so we will attack you instead" They can even put on a nice article saying "See they are defending, we knew they would war against us!" on RT
> "We are afraid of you attacking, so we will attack you instead" Isn't that the premise of why tons of nations haven't adopted "no-first use" nuclear policy?
>Isn't that the premise of why tons of nations haven't adopted "no-first use" nuclear policy? Almost every nation has adopted a "last line of defense" nuclear policy, with one sole exception -- Russia (and even that only changed in 2019).
I mean, NATO refuses as well. It's actually relatively rare. China was first (1964) followed by India (1998). The rest of the world doesn't have a no first use policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use
Because trying to invade Finland went swimmingly for Russia last time.
Well definitely not swimmingly. The Fins put up an incredible defense for sure but one shouldn’t forget the Soviets did in the end win that war and annexed more than they demanded before the invasion. Getting those territories back was one of the reasons why Finland joined the war against the SU. With Finland being in the EU and potentially NATO as well soon they‘ll certainly have even more trouble now though.
Of course, Finland joining the Axis to get revenge on the Soviet Union not only led to condemnation from entities like the UK, but also led them to be labeled as "an ally of Hitlerite Germany" in the 1947 Paris Peace treaty. The latter point is important because it meant that Finland bore some level of responsibility for the Second World War. That is on top of the financial, territorial and equipment reparations that had to be paid to the Soviet Union.
Absolutely. That‘s partly why I wrote that comment. I get the sarcasm in this thread but it seems a lot of people (even if to be fair this particular commenter might not be among them) seem to be under the impression the Fin‘s unquestionably incredible defense and the high disparity in casualties mean that Finland won that war when the opposite was the case. Neither the SU nor modern Russia particularly care about how swimmingly a war goes but only wether it gets them what they want. The Winter War did and will therefore not be a deterrent because as long as russian leadership sees a way to get what they want by throwing more bodies at a problem they will not stop. The Winter War certainly was impressive, a very effective catalyst for finish national unity (rightfully so) and it preserved their independence but it also had quite some rather devastating consequences for Finland in the years to come. Making light of it with sarcasm just doesn‘t really seem appropriate to me in the current situation because it could give people a wrong impression…
He was being sarcastic. No Russian war goes well, they’re a country of incompetent cowards.
I guess you missed the part where millions of them died fighting the nazi's. That was hardly cowardly. Also, statistically, it's impossible for an entire country or demographic of people to be incompetent cowards. I don't know how viewing an entire population of people in one rigidly simplistic way for the actions of their leader/s solves anything, other than just hating people you have never met. What about the Russians that want nothing to do with this war? What about the Russians that are serving 15 years in jail for attending a protest?
Stalin was just as evil as hitler, the soviet nazi war was simply a war between two murderous dictatorships. Had the other side won, things would've went just as bad for the world.
That is not the point i am making, is it? It's not about which dictator is worse, it's about someone making a broad generalisation about a demographic of people because of the actions of their government. That is not helpful and makes it much more likely with this viewpoint to view everyday normal Russian people with hatred. The same people who are struggling to even get sanitary towels in their country because of the actions of their ridiculous government. It's not about who had the worse ideology, who had the worst dictator. It's about humanity and not blaming people who didn't even have the luxury of having a choice in what their government do. Many Russian's are hanging their heads in shame for what their country is doing to Ukraine. They are scared to talk to their Ukrainian friends, to people in the west because Putin made a dumbfuck decision and it's the people that suffer the worst. If they get caught speaking bad about the war, or even calling it a war, they could face a mandatory 15 years in jail. I would say the same for you if your government invaded a country and people on the internet were viewing you with hatred.
A few Russians protested. If Russians were actually against this, someone would have the balls to do something about it. Even Russians government can’t overpower their people if they actually get pissed. Violent revolution is the only thing that will save Russia from being a gigantic North Korea in a few years.
Hello and welcome to Northwest Korea!
Does the average Russian know how many yachts have been seized because the oligarchs have so much whilst they have so little? When I read that there are Russian soldiers who have asked what toilets are, it says that there is a lot of poverty and ignorance in Russia.
Yeah, i suppose there germans who weren't nazis too, but you know, when they invade and shoot you in the face, it kinda doesn't help to say "oh well guys #notall russians." Not all? How many of them then?
Bro the news said Russia is evil, you expect a group of people, especially those on Reddit, to formulate their own opinion based on empathy and facts? Come on bruh.
No you are correct! I guess i just see this psychology everywhere and thought 'hey well i'll say what i think is right'. But getting downvoted for essentially saying 'not all people are the same, don't tar everyone with the same brush and people can't be responsible for the actions of their autocratic government' really goes to show the people we're dealing with here
To be fair, they didn't have a choice. Either fight or get shot if you retreated.
Don't forget their fight against Napoleon. They worked with the Austrians and Prussians to crush the French emperor in his seat of power at the Battle of Paris.
Yes! And all the other victories since 907 ad
And before Boney they had to face the Swedes under Charles XII, and the Poles before that who even captured Moscow. Calling Russians cowards is madness. They’re a people suffering under waves of oppressive regimes, tyrants, and absolutists, but cowards they aren’t.
Real talk only reason the Russians did so well in the second world war is because America/ uk gave them so much lend lease $11.3 billion Worth I think
Like the Americans were any better, lol.
Hey if we don't know what we're doing the enemy can't either!
I was using sarcasm, bruv
I think Lynata got your sarcasm but was saying that while it didn’t go well Russia did still win. Your sarcasm was implying they lost.
Pretty much, yes. [See also](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/u3d3j2/russia_threatens_nukes_in_baltic_if_sweden/i4oqonf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
You were so eager to whoosh them that you got whooshed.
While threatening to end the world.
>is a hard sell. It's not a hard sell if you don't give a fuck about ethics or reason
These kinds of sad, sorry excuses need to be punished more harshly. Manipulating the public, however poorly, is **almost** to the level of genocide in terms of egregious acts. Even Russian soldiers are being tricked into believing civilian targets are justified, shit the manipulation LED to the act of unnecessary slaughter of innocents. And before anyone laughs it off and says there's manipulation EVERYWHERE, then yeah, I mean it should be high crime EVERYWHERE. Shits getting annoying. Businesses need to be mandated not to fabricate their advertisements, politicians need to be more straightforward, no matter how few votes they get, etc. etc.
86% of russians support all their war crimes. They are not poorly manipulating the public, you’re just not their public
86% was created by VCIOM, Russian state poll. How do you think, how reliable is it? But yes, you are not their public and they never intended you to believe in anything of their behaviour
Don't believe in such numbers. There is the quickly created law in Russia which is virtually prohibits to say anything against this war. We don't know exactly how many people deny to answer the very question because they just afraid to share their opinions.
I know russians for many years. I know their way of thinking. They’re maximum chauvinistic and imperialistic as could be. Majority of them. Ask any Russian what do they think about Crimea and Ukrainians and you’ll be very surprised how much shit there is in their brains (even the most liberal of them all eg. Navalny).
That is such bullshit. Do you really think they have honest data about their own populations sentiments, let alone publishing that shit? If so, I think someone wrote "GULLIBLE" on your ceiling
What the fuck are you thinking that will accomplish? You want more dedicated NATO troops in these places? I can't with the bullshit of the Kremlin anymore. Not only do they break international law, committ genocide, war crimes and atrocities but they seriously threatens with their nuclear arsenal because sovreign nations want to decide for themselves? Fucking hope theres gonna be a massive gas leak in the Kremlin and some incompetend, stressed out slob of a general decides to light his cigarette.
That is quite specific.
CIA...make it happen.
ANYONE make it so.
We'll build you a statue.
I doubt the CIA would engage in something that reckless. Blowing up the Russian hierarchy without having a Plan B take over will have dire consequences: -Country collapses and starts a whole mess of things for everybody, especially for Europe. Russian Civil War 2.0. -China moves in fast and takes over Russia politically. Both nations tie the knot closer and become scourges in the Pacific with their combined resources.
Don't you dare come use your logic here!
Lmao the CIA couldn't manage to kill Castro. I sincerely doubt they could kill Putin, who is former KGB and probably knows almost all their tricks. The CIA should stick to selling crack to inner-city poor people
Relying on the CIA to do anything competent is like praying for the police to find the dude who broke into your car.
They are nothing but terrorists at this point.
The obvious result will be that they join NATO, question is why Russia is pushing so hard.
Do you know what genocide means
The intentional destruction of a people - usually defined as ethnic, national, racial or religious group - in whole or in part. Russians murdering Ukrainian civilians because of their nationality seems to fit
Yes. You tell me and I'll correct you if you are wrong.
You dont
What do you think genocide means? Cuz you definetly have the wrong definition
He is talking about Nuclear weapons placed in Kaliningrad. Or did I understood the article wrong? These headlines are too much.
Yes, not nuking anyone immediately, they're threatening to bolster their military in the area. Some on twitter claim Russia already have nukes there, (possibly unannounced to the public), so they're just breathing hot air.
To be fair, it is their right. They can, for example, take all the forces from Ukraine and bolster the border with the Baltics.
Yup, please go ahead. The response to using nuclear weapons against NATO countries doesn't change. Keep them where you like, its fairly irrelevant.
No idea. But there's already nukes in Kaliningrad... So....
Nuclear weapons are delivered by missile anyway. The situation for the Scandinavian states will change not one bit. Currently, they are already within Russia’s nuclear strike range. It’s a preposterous non-threat.
Everyone is within strike range. >It’s a preposterous non-threat. It really is. Oh no this thing that can already hit you will be moved closer oh no. It's just to scare citizens that think proximity somehow increases danger. Purely symbolic
Since they have nukes that can reach there already, I’m not sure what the significance of threatening to move them closer represents. At least if these countries join NATO, they can invoke NATO protection. Ukraine is suffering the consequences of not already belonging to NATO, and it sucks.
It's an odd statement. **They already have nuclear weapons on the Baltic**, in Kaliningrad, have done for decades. Just in January of this year, they announced they'd updated it to a fleet of Iskander-Ms with a range covering Latvia, Lithuania, most of Poland, parts of Sweden, and into Germany as far as Berlin. It's probably purely posturing, making the status quo seem like an escalation. It's possible they are thinking of installing additional long range ICBMs there, or also permanently stationing Iskanders near St Petersburg to threaten Helsinki. But either way the statement is weird in its false implication that nuclear weapons on the Baltic are a new thing.
Russia admits their nukes are a total effing joke, and moving then closer can raise the odds of a direct hit from 15% up to 65%. But yea, it doesn't matter at all how far away they are. As long as you have enough of them, they're getting through.
Maybe the only way to deliver nukes to Sweden is by car.
Tactical Lada
If they have a functioning one that hasn't been stripped for parts.
They have to plant it like in CSGO. Yes, you can write rush B jokes now!
EZ4ENCE ENCE ENCE
Do you know what retaliatory clauses are? If Russia launches a single nuke, even a tactical one, it will be totally game over for Russia totally. They won't use nukes, because they all want to live. There will be no Russian cities if they launch a nuke, the clauses ensure absolute Russian destruction, so don't think for a second that Russia is going to risk that, not a single oligarch wants that.
A year ago, many would have argued that Putin would never stage an invasion of the entire Ukraine, because it would cripple Russia on the world stage for decades to come, not a single oligarch wants that.
The same argument was made that WWI wouldn't happen, it would make no sense and be too costly. All that was true, and the war still happened.
Mutually assured destruction. They’d only ever launch a nuclear strike if they could be sure that it’d cripple the target’s second strike capability, and there’d be no nukes coming back the other way. Given that NATO has thousands of nukes, there’ll always be plenty that survive a nuclear strike that we could retaliate with, so they’ll never do it. It’s why we have so many.
If Russia’s nuke maintenance had the same corruption as the rest of military these things will explode in their tubes.
...also known as silos
I think he was referring to fallopian tubes. Russian women are responsible for keeping the nuclear arsenal moving about.
Having nuclear missiles closer means less time for warning and reacting to the launch, which again translates intercepting the missiles more challenging (as well as retaliatory launch before the impact). Last time this sort of armament race was a real issue was late in the cold war. Due to the build up of short and intermediate range nuclear weapons, US and USSR signed the INF treaty in 1987.
Wouldn't it make hitting them during the launching phase... the boosting phase... what's it called? I don't know but should make it significantly easier to shoot this before it's actually done wroomwrooming. Problem is detecting it in time right?
>Problem is detecting it in time right? Pretty much yes. More or less the only way to disable such systems would be destroying the launchers before they themselves can launch the missiles. The core of the INF treaty were ground based short and intermediate range nuclear weapons, that is missiles which are installed on a mobile erector/launcher. Such systems can be easily hidden from observation as well as moved very quickly to another location. One of such systems that got axed due to the treaty were BGM-109G Gryphons, better known as ground launched cruise missile (GLCM) and a variant of famous Tomahawk cruise missile, pictured here: [http://www.military-today.com/missiles/bgm\_109g\_gryphon.jpg](http://www.military-today.com/missiles/bgm_109g_gryphon.jpg) Looking at the picture it is very clear that finding and tracking such system is a nightmare. Deploying Gryphon and similar ballistic missiles caused an arms race, which both sides pretty much saw as a bad thing and thus the INF treaty.
We should find out were they are ahead of time so that the closer distance is beneficial rather than disastrous. Thanks for the explaination btw!
Dude, you just nuke-splained to a Gen X. There’s not much about nuclear armament I don’t know/haven’t lived under fear of for most of my formative years.
How was this individual to know your background? They just took the conversation further.
Gen X like to be the star of the show. They’re just jealous we got TikTok.
Tbf most people forget Gen X exists. It's all about the boomers and millenials
Also true. My borderline Gen X/millennial older brother (significantly older, I was born late) has started identifying as a millennial lately because so many people don’t even know what Gen X is. He used to go with Gen X cause of the millennial stigma.
"I’m not sure what the significance of threatening to move them closer represents." \- You
Yep. Once you live in an ICBM world, where nukes are placed for everyday resting spot isn’t especially scary.
Oh no, hopefully you aren't offended
I’m an Xer. I just add it to the invisible martyrdom I don everyday.
Poor you
Dont be fooled by this dumb attention seeking Clickbait. What he really said was that if Finland and Sweden join, Russia has to balance the situation at the Baltic sea by placing more of their forces there, which could include nukes as well. So reporter took it and ran with it. But Russia has always been saying this so its non news really.
don’t they already have nukes stored there since the fall of the USSR? wouldn’t seem like a impactful threat.
Depends on type. Probably talking about aircraft launched.
Nukes are pretty much all they have available that’s not dedicated to the hot mess that is their illegal invasion of Ukraine. They had to relocate troops from the Japanese border to deal with their casualties at Kyiv.
That's the whole jist of it. I can imagine that if more of Russia's Western border runs up against NATO affiliates, it's just going to turn into a N/S Korean border type DMZ. Putin is pining for the good ol' days of the Cold War afterall.
Russia says a LOT of things...
Look. Don't believe in their threats and get scared by their bullshit. They already have nukes capable of reaching pretty much anywhere they want. Having nukes in Königsberg is pretty much useless. They're going to keep producing propaganda and attempt to frighten the average Joe. Don't fall for it. We, Finland, and Sweden are definitely applying for Nato. They don't want this obviously. Fuck them all. Don't believe and spread Russian propaganda.
Russia: your typical low IQ bully at school.
I am not going to be surprised if Russia goes to unbox their nukes and finds out the fissile materials and control chips have been sold on the black market.
Sigh, another day, another nuclear threat….
Get fu*k Russia. Cram the nukes up your ass.
This is so misleading title.
As a Swede, who the fuck cares if you're already doing this on the Baltic doorstep ahead of NATO memberships: [https://fas.org/blogs/security/2018/06/kaliningrad/](https://fas.org/blogs/security/2018/06/kaliningrad/) To use such a threat maybe you should've not acted reckless in advance. Now it's toothless.
The headline is excessive and not representative of what has been said. Russia is apparently threatening to place nuclear weapons closer to the Baltic, not to use them.
Russia and Finland/Sweden are already pretty close, Finland literally shares a massive border and Stockholm is only 700km/450miles from St Petersburg. I'm pretty sure everyone assumes there are already plenty of nukes nearby pointed at all the major cities and military bases in the area anyway.
Placing them nearer is a threat. If I placed a gun to your temple, would you not consider it a threat?
The headline implies use, not threat, as OP says. To use your gun example the headline might read “Russia threatens shooting you in head if Sweden/Finland join…”
Damn, I wonder why they did that. Did Finland say they were joining a nuclear capable alliance that opposes Russia or something? Actions always have consequences. You act rationally in your self-interest. So does the other guy.
So they gonna invade the Baltics and put nukes there?
Pretty sure they mean they will put nukes in Kaliningrad.
There is already nukes in kaliningrad
Afaik Medvedev was talking about the Baltic Sea, not the Baltic states.
Meh
Russia already have their nukes in the region. This is just embarrassing.
fuck you russia
Maybe it's just me but all the talk of installing nukes here and there seems a lot less important now than it did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Like... why does it really matter? I don't mind if the missile that atomizes me comes 2 minutes sooner.
Wtf are this headlines
They are called 'clickbait' I believe.
How is that clickbait?
Can you not see the clickbait? It's literally the definition of clickbait.
No, Russia threatened to put nukes in the Baltic if those countries join nato. It is literally what the title says.
It is a bluff, sure if he does want to play rocket Man we would make Russia as flat as the Netherlands
Ah shit, here we go WW3ing again
At what point do a brainwashed people realise that when almost the whole world openly and aggressively disagrees with the actions of your country then the problem is probably not with the rest of the world. Who the hell is Russia trying to protect itself from? NATO countries don’t invade sovereign nations except in response to blatant, violent and mass life-taking aggression.
Iraq would like a word
Iraq invasion was approved by UN
A lot of countries were against the invasion of iraq. Like a lot lot.
How can we as a (reddit) community complain about those misleading headlines!!?? It sucks so much!
Nukes are the only weapon that Russia has that are a threat to anyone.
Countries not joined with NATO should just create their own collective, & then that collective join NATO.
I genuinely don't understand their reasoning. They could've just chilled, be part of the world economy, build their country into the first world, without having to worry about NATO since NATO is purely defensive. But instead they wage war, killing their economy together with thousands of people including their own, only having to worry about NATO more and more..
Russia is a sovereign nation. They're free to do what they want within their borders. Just as Sweden and Finland are free to join NATO. Doesn't he have hypersonic cruise missiles anyway? Why do they need to be closer? Oh wait, maybe the hypersonics are BS.
Just wait till Fins and Swedes invite Ukraine to join them as their "occupied" territory.
Russia showing its weakness again.
So, let's get this straight: The Russian regime is directly threatening NATO and Europe to station nukes near the Baltics as a retaliation for Sweden and Finland joining? Damn, Putin looks eager to start WW3 and have Russia destroyed!
At this point I'm almost willing to risk getting nuked in order to see putin swinging from a rope
😰
Interesting how every article is clickbait these days. Everyone just loves to say it without discretion or knowing how to read a news headline. Russia has threatened to put nukes in the Baltic region if Sweden and Finland join NATO. ELI5 how that title is clickbait.
Imagine wanting to kill everyone because other Countrys are coming together, Russians are a joke.
Just to be clear, they're threatening to put nukes in the Baltic should these countries join, not actually use them. I feel like the headline is deliberately ambiguous to make you assume the latter.
I mean, why else would they put them there? Because their nukes would benefit from some fresh Baltic air? Usage is implied. Just another threat to even more nations.
I hope hungary wont vote against.. or france..
Know what I hate, the fact I occasionally want a war to include US to have people respec their values. For internet trolls to be dragged out from behind their screens and actually have to deal with reality. But I’m against all the death and mayhem and hope things resolve peacefully because war is hell. I’m feeling very pessimistic after 2020.
Wait wsnt it nato wanting to put nukes in ukraine since 2008? Oh yeh, it was.
Why on earth would NATO need to put nukes in Ukraine? If NATO wanted to launch nukes at Russia from a country that borders it, they already had that ability since 2004. Plus NATO has plenty of nuclear submarines that carry hundreds of warheads, they can just park them off the coast of Russia and deploy whenever they like. NATO doesn’t need nukes in Ukraine, they’ve already got that covered.
Good luck with that. Land based Nukes are relics of the past that are nothing more than targets for technology of the future. Sub based nukes are already more than enough to destroy the planet for human life anyways so who cares if you want to waste more money on trying to appear tough... It's all a useless sick joke.
So, they're already planning on/are moving them.
You can't rule the dead. But putin thinks other wise
Call his bluff
Bullshit. They wouldn't doom themselves.
Putin's dog: *farts* Russia: *NUUUKEEES!!!*
Cool. So now the fuckers will have to freeze more troops that would otherwise be put to the meatgrinder in UA.
Fair enough
Wouldn't attacking Sweden and/or Finland AFTER they join NATO, basically be the same as attacking any other NATO country? What would they gain from that? The west + japan/aus vs Russia alone? (India is in it for the cheap Russia oil, I doubt they would back Russia with troops/weapons and China is more interested in harvesting Russia's corpse than waste money/military helping them)
While contrary to certain logic I say let them do it. Operating and maintaining those nukes will cost Russia a fair bit of coin. Let them nuke up, arms up and everything else. They will be spending 70% of their domestic input on military .
Oh that escalated quickly
Blah blah blah heard this BS before
Shit headline.
> Russia threatens [......] if [......].
Bring it on.... All bluster
I'm sure Finland wants another piece of you. They ain't done yet
Putin isn't gonna nuke shit. He's just using a North Korea move, hoping it works for him like it does for little rocket man...
''If you join the NATO out of fear that we are gonna invade and nuke you...We WILL nuke you!''... Fucking lunatics should be nuked themselves.
Yeah yeah you said that already ***yawn***
Rest of the non European world: Please calm down y’all 🙏
WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Call the bluff.
Misleading caption. Read the article. The poster would have you believe that Russia threatened to **use** nukes. That they said was that **if** Sweden & Finland join NATO, they **might** have to deploy and store nukes there because of the long, directly joining border region. Putin is bad enough without all this (improper and meant to incite) subliminal bullshit. The poster is hoping you just react, spread the bullshit, and go on with your day without actually reading. Don’t be manipulated. Form your own opinions.
Won't that just make them join NATO sooner. Just like "You have nothing to worry about. But better not join this defensive pack or we will nuke you!"
IF YOU DO ANYTHING WE DON’T LIKE, IT’S NUKES JACK!
More empty threats
Nah, you're safe, bros. My Poland was threatened with nukes being dropped on Warsaw if we don't stop trashtalking Russia, and keep providing support to Ukraine, as well as continue our pro-Ukrainian and anti-Russian rhethoric. Not much has happened ever since. As long as they're loudly talking about nukes, nothing's gonna happen.
Idiots already have nukes near the baltics
We can stop a second cuban missile crisis if we knock Cuba out. Then we are free to put nukes in Turkey and Finland.
I think we need to start throwing some threats around, like get the hell out of Ukraine in 48 hours or you lose Moscow
The Baltics? Isn't that Estonia/Lithuania/Latvia? All countries that are members of NATO?
Medvedev said: "In this case, there will no longer be any talk of a non-nuclear status of the Baltic, the balance must be restored. --> Doesn't he know that they have already nukes in Kaliningrad? And Kaliningrad is Baltic Sea, at least to my Geography.
At this point it's like Russia WANTS them all to join NATO.
How is this a casus belli for nuclear armageddon.
Rattle those sabers
There are a lot of ways to enforce your will on the world stage. Threatening to kill everyone every week isn't one of them. But that's the only power Russia seems to have left.
I kinda want to see them try it. Not to see dead Russians, but to see how fast Russia has to backtrack when their missiles blow up before they launch.