- Joined
- Aug 11, 2010
- defconwarningsystem
- DEFCONWSALERTS
- YOUTUBE
- DefconWarningSystem
This has been Russia's line for some time. The difficulty is: What constitutes and "existential threat"?
-
Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.
UA-RU | March 24th-26th | DISCUSSIONS
- Thread starter DEFCON Warning System
- Start date
- Status
I wonder what Putin's definition of existential is.
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2017
I saw this news more with a Russian signal that it will not use tactical nukes. But you see, Russia has not denied so far about using chemical weapons.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Location
- Detroit, Michigan, USA
Hasn't that been the United States' doctrine as well?
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2016
I don’t ever remember it being due to any conventional loss or economic.
Chemical bio and massive cyber
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2015
How Putin might apply the concept of ‘existential threat’ to the Russian state is something I have thought about a lot. The west seems to think of this primarily as a direct military attack on Russia, but I think Putin’s definition could be much broader, and more fluid.
He already implies existential threats to Russia from NATO, from Ukrainian ‘nazis’, from economic war. He seems to be somewhat paranoid, and to see himself as the embodiment of the state itself. In the face of a disastrous military campaign and mounting economic pressure, he may feel existentially threatened, especially if there is a whiff of any moves to replace him in future.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2016
Does sanctioning a country into oblivion constitute an existential threat?
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2016
Keep in mind this is not Russia specifically they are referring to. It is if Putin and his immediate cronies come under direct attack, they will go nuclear. Even if his own people rise up against him, he would launch nukes before giving up his power. Literally, a terrorist with thousands of nuclear weapons.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2015
Economic war is war
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2016
Very good question.
Russia /Putin Definitions "existential threat".
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2017
- Location
- Perth Western Australia
Existential threat could simply mean crippling sanctions to a countrys future. Such as what the west is doing now to Russia. Putin may request this once to be removed. Failure of this , meets this criteria. And we all know the west wouldn't even halve those sanctions should he bend over. And Putin knows it.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2021
Honestly there is no way to evaluate what his criteria for launching preemptive nuclear strikes on nato actually are. Nato needs to be on point at a seconds notice any time of the day or night for weeks/months from now depending how long this drags on and escalates so they may in turn be in a position to respond with MAD> . That nuclear 9/11 with hypersonics is a legit reality. The sanctions alone are supposed to be in themselves sufficient criteria for such an attack not counting all the blatant weapons ammo and recon we are throwing at Ukraine. People thinking that we need to attack moscow directly with conventional strikes to activate a Russian nuclear retaliation are not in touch with reality. Russia is bleeding everywhere and apparently are counting on Belarus to staunch the wound while they sink deeper and deeper into this quagmire of defeat. Putin is capable of anything, as mentioned above...a terrorist with thousands of nuclear missiles.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2022
did you watch the clip? he didnt say "at this time", he didnt mention US troops possibly being involved in Ukraine at all in this clip, didnt mention it.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2010
- defconwarningsystem
- DEFCONWSALERTS
- YOUTUBE
- DefconWarningSystem
That isn't what he said. Not in that clip anyway.
Took my text off. Put in place unverified yet.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2022
He didn't use that phrase, but he was asked if there was any plan to increase US troop presence in the area. He answered that right now the UN/NATO command in the area are saying they have what they need but, the situation could evolve. So, no, didn't say that exact phrase, but that phrase pretty much sums up what he said. He didn't rule out more US troops in the area...just not increasing them at this time in the area in response to the situation in Ukraine.
What he said seems entirely understandable, but the tweet isn't what he said.
All I heard is him speaking about US foreign policy posture changing to fit new threats and troops in the area reflecting this.
I don't think Ukraine was mentioned at all?
All I heard is him speaking about US foreign policy posture changing to fit new threats and troops in the area reflecting this.
I don't think Ukraine was mentioned at all?
I just listened to the whole breifing. He did kinda imply it. HE SAID "currently there are no US troops." The word currently implies the possibility later.
Everything depends on the translations, and in various languages, it sometimes gives different interpretations. During the 2021 end-of-year speech in December, translated by French media, Putin told a reporter from SkyNews (British):
You the west, that's what you want war, and you citizens will be dragged into a horrible war
and I can tell you that you won't have time to blink
that nuclear will be upon you. The journalist looked petrified.
Did he really say that or the translation interpreted it.
Unfortunately, I can't find the link.
Youtube filter.
You the west, that's what you want war, and you citizens will be dragged into a horrible war
and I can tell you that you won't have time to blink
that nuclear will be upon you. The journalist looked petrified.
Did he really say that or the translation interpreted it.
Unfortunately, I can't find the link.
Youtube filter.
- Status