• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Russia v. USA Worldviews & Nuclear Security

More nuclear war doubletalk from Russia speaking about its willingness to prevent nuclear war, but not willing to have a ceasefire and stop the escalation of war in Ukraine.
October 21, 2022 - Russia Tass State Media Propaganda - "Antonov said that Moscow is doing everything to prevent nuclear war" - "According to the Russian ambassador in Washington, a nuclear war cannot happen and there will be no winners" - "The Russian side is doing everything to prevent a nuclear war. This was announced on Friday by the Russian Ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, on the air of the Rossiya-24 TV channel. 'I will give you a firm answer, at least what we are doing, Russian diplomats, what Russian politicians are doing, are doing everything to prevent this from happening,' he said, answering a relevant question. 'We are committed to the position approved by our presidents, and not only of Russia, but also of the 'nuclear five', that a nuclear war cannot happen and there will be no winners. There will simply not be, there will be nothing, there will be no one. Therefore I believe that everything must be done to prevent this from happening,' Antonov stressed."

More nuclear war doubletalk from Russia condemning nuclear war talk from others as a "very harmful and provocative practice," which they continuing to participate in.
October 12, 2022 - Russia Tass State Media Propaganda - Russia Kremlim Spokesperson Peskov: "We express regret every day that Western heads of state - the United States of America, European ones - practice nuclear rhetoric every day. We consider this a very harmful and provocative practice. Russia does not want to and does not take part in these exercises."
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
And look where that got us. Russia gobbling up other countries.
Click to expand...
I do look where that got us - 60 years without nuclear war with Russia and marginal world conflicts with Russia, until now.
Untold millions of lives and actual generations of human beings and other life - all saved. I won't apologize for survival of humanity.
A moratorium on use of weapons of mass destruction - only used by USA in destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (killing over 120,000, wounding 90,000)

Let's recount those facts about "Russia gobbling up other countries":
-- USSR invaded in Hungary Revolution of 1956 and Warsaw Pact Invasion of Czechoslovak Socialist Republic in 1968. Both are free countries now (and part of NATO).
-- Russia's wars in 21st century: (1999 Second Chechen War) fighting jihadist Chechnya; (2008 Russo-Georgia War) Georgia to "free" what were "self-proclaimed republics" of South Ossetia and Abkhazi (most people don't even know/care it happened) ; (2014) Annexation of Crimea
-- What other countries being "gobbled up" am I missing in documented history?
-- Is this the history of "Russia gobbling up other countries" that should lead us to this level of conflict with nuclear weaponed Russia?
-- Note that the death toll for 6 months in Chicago attacks on children and civilians is greater than either the 2008 Russo-Georgia War on the Invasion of Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. No country is showing up to "free" and defend the people of Chicago. And USA lives are considered expendable. Especially when they are not caucasian.

For the record, I would consider myself an enemy of Russia and a lifelong opponent of the Soviet Union. I can also assess facts. I don't see these as mutually exclusive.
I can condemn the cruel Russia invasion of Ukraine, condemn Russia dictator Putin, and still also be able to look at such historical fact, and especially when we consider the nuclear war consequences of endless escalation. Number one in saving lives from nuclear bombs is to do everything to stop them from ever being used.
 
REALHumanRights said:
I do look where that got us - 60 years without nuclear war
Click to expand...
Appeasing Russia has gotten us 60 years without nuclear war... Let's look at the cost.

Untold numbers of dead from Soviet oppression. (Don't let's even talk about China or North Korea.)

What other countries being "gobbled up" am I missing in documented history?
Click to expand...

Lots. Lots and lots.

Entire swaths of Europe under the Iron Curtain. Glad it fell, but are we so callous that we dismiss the generation that suffered behind it?

Two wars. (North Korea and Vietnam.)

Invasion and annexation of Georgia and Ukraine.

Cuba, Venezuela, Cambodia, etc, etc, etc.

This is what appeasement has birthed.

Yeah, we haven't had nuclear war. But in being afraid to stand up to evil, evil has been inflicted.

In the name of avoiding war, Hitler was appeased and WWII happened and millions died.

There is a saying that goes "If you have nothing to die for, you have nothing to live for."
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Appeasing Russia has gotten us 60 years without nuclear war... Let's look at the cost.

Untold numbers of dead from Soviet oppression. (Don't let's even talk about China or North Korea.)

Lots. Lots and lots.
Click to expand...
"Lots. Lots and lots."

So one can be an opponent of the USSR and also recognize that there were countries whose governments and leaders chose a Communist system. One can also be an opponent of the USSR and recognize that it did not form after its first deployable nuclear ICBM in 1962. Let's be clear about what the Russia/USSR "gobbled up" in the nuclear age: Crimea and two Georgia territories (which were part of the USSR) so obscure that less than the smallest fraction of Americans have ever heard of them. Chechens joined Russia to stop jihadists.
We don't have to like the facts, but that doesn't change history. Do we want to revisit Bolshevik revolution (100 yrs ago), and WWII (77 yrs ago), as a rational to justify risk of nuclear war with Russia?

And let's also be honest - today's Donbass region conflict is nothing compared to what USA gave the USSR.

December 1922 - 100 years ago (23 years before USA's first atom bomb and 40 years before the USSR's first real nuclear ICBM) - after the Bolshevik uprising, Russia, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, AND the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic - formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR).
Let's be factual --**MANY** of the founders of the USSR chose this Communist rule. The Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic included the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic, Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic - were all part of the 1920s Bolshevik revolution led by Vladimir Lenin., as was Uzbek Socialist Soviet Republic, Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic, Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic. The Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic and Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic were also the result of this 1920s revolution, and merely changing organization names in the 1930s to be part of the USSR. During the 1940s WWII, the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic, Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic, Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, were all invaded, and Estonia and Latvia were invaded by Nazi Germany.

Did USA/UK/etc. send in their military to defend these countries from the Bolshevik Communist revolution?
And what Bolshevik revolution have to do with a nuclear bomb threat that didn't even exist?
OR During WWII? To free them from either the USSR OR Nazi Germany? Again, what did USA, UK, etc. do to defend these nations.... **BEFORE** the USSR/Russia nuclear bomb?
Because 99% of this "lots and lots" argument is PRE-nuclear USSR/Russia. History, facts, dates. Not my opinion.

Among the Warsaw Pact, let us also be honest in our assessment of the facts of history. The Communists in Czechoslovak Socialist Republic had a coup d'etat of their own government in 1948. The Communists in the Polish People's Republic chose communism in 1947 after WWII. The Socialist Republic of Romania (a former member of the Nazi Axis) had mass demonstrations by communists after liberation in 1945 that drove that nation to communism under the Romanian Workers' Party. It was the 1944 coup d'etat of Communist activist against the Bulgarian government alighed with Nazi Axis that led to the People's Republic of Bulgaria in 1946. The communists in the People's Socialist Republic of Albania , led by the National Liberation Movement, liberated Albania from the Nazis; they chose a communist regime. The Hungarian People's Republic by 1949 was controlled by communists, and it was the heir to Republic of Councils in Hungary, one of the first communist nations in 1919 after the Soviet Union (with UK and USSR having an "agreement" it should stay in the Soviet sphere, per the 1944 Moscow Conference.)

But to be perfectly clear on the Warsaw Pact nations "gobbled" by the USSR: East Germany. USA and UK **GAVE** East Germany to the USSR. USA had an atom bomb THEN. USA knew the future consequences. USA knew who the USSR was. But USA gave the USSR 108,333 sq. km (41,828 sq mi) and 18,000,000 people in E. Germany. GAVE THEM.
And the USSR was still 20 years away from having an ICBM nuclear bomb. So even this was not part of Soviet/Russia nuclear threats.

But compare East Germany to the Donetsk and Luhansk - here is the math:
Donetsk Oblast: 26,517 sq. km (10,238 sq mi)
Luhansk Oblast: 26,684 sq. km (10,303 sq mi)
-- Barely half of the territory of East Germany. - and with about 6 million people (certainly not that NOW) - not even a third of East Germany.

But **THIS** is where we are going to "draw the line" with nuclear-powered Russia.

Sidenote: When did the USSR invade North Korea and North Vietnam? Because the Korean Peninsula was divided in half after Japanese surrender in 1945 by USA and USSR - and
I know of the Việt Minh 1945 Revolution.
 
REALHumanRights said:
But **THIS** is where we are going to "draw the line" with nuclear-powered Russia.
Click to expand...
Yeah. This is where we are going to draw the line. Otherwise there is going to be a next time. And a next time. And a next.

All those examples you gave above were all Soviet orchestrated. They weren't organic. Don't let play that they were. And Russia used its army to get and keep what it couldn't overthrow in other ways. The Iron Curtain wasn't there to keep the West out. It was there to keep their own people in. We all know that.

REALHumanRights said:
When did the USSR invade North Korea and North Vietnam?
Click to expand...
It was backed by Russia and China. Mostly China in the former. If Russia has been stopped after WWII, there would not have been either of those wars. So yes, giving in to them resulted in those wars.

Peace At Any Cost is too high of a cost.

The price of freedom is paid in blood sometimes.
 
REALHumanRights said:
"Lots. Lots and lots."

So one can be an opponent of the USSR and also recognize that there were countries whose governments and leaders chose a Communist system. One can also be an opponent of the USSR and recognize that it did not form after its first deployable nuclear ICBM in 1962. Let's be clear about what the Russia/USSR "gobbled up" in the nuclear age: Crimea and two Georgia territories (which were part of the USSR) so obscure that less than the smallest fraction of Americans have ever heard of them. Chechens joined Russia to stop jihadists.
We don't have to like the facts, but that doesn't change history. Do we want to revisit Bolshevik revolution (100 yrs ago), and WWII (77 yrs ago), as a rational to justify risk of nuclear war with Russia?

And let's also be honest - today's Donbass region conflict is nothing compared to what USA gave the USSR.

December 1922 - 100 years ago (23 years before USA's first atom bomb and 40 years before the USSR's first real nuclear ICBM) - after the Bolshevik uprising, Russia, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, AND the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic - formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR).
Let's be factual --**MANY** of the founders of the USSR chose this Communist rule. The Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic included the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic, Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic - were all part of the 1920s Bolshevik revolution led by Vladimir Lenin., as was Uzbek Socialist Soviet Republic, Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic, Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic. The Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic and Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic were also the result of this 1920s revolution, and merely changing organization names in the 1930s to be part of the USSR. During the 1940s WWII, the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic, Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic, Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, were all invaded, and Estonia and Latvia were invaded by Nazi Germany.

Did USA/UK/etc. send in their military to defend these countries from the Bolshevik Communist revolution?
And what Bolshevik revolution have to do with a nuclear bomb threat that didn't even exist?
OR During WWII? To free them from either the USSR OR Nazi Germany? Again, what did USA, UK, etc. do to defend these nations.... **BEFORE** the USSR/Russia nuclear bomb?
Because 99% of this "lots and lots" argument is PRE-nuclear USSR/Russia. History, facts, dates. Not my opinion.

Among the Warsaw Pact, let us also be honest in our assessment of the facts of history. The Communists in Czechoslovak Socialist Republic had a coup d'etat of their own government in 1948. The Communists in the Polish People's Republic chose communism in 1947 after WWII. The Socialist Republic of Romania (a former member of the Nazi Axis) had mass demonstrations by communists after liberation in 1945 that drove that nation to communism under the Romanian Workers' Party. It was the 1944 coup d'etat of Communist activist against the Bulgarian government alighed with Nazi Axis that led to the People's Republic of Bulgaria in 1946. The communists in the People's Socialist Republic of Albania , led by the National Liberation Movement, liberated Albania from the Nazis; they chose a communist regime. The Hungarian People's Republic by 1949 was controlled by communists, and it was the heir to Republic of Councils in Hungary, one of the first communist nations in 1919 after the Soviet Union (with UK and USSR having an "agreement" it should stay in the Soviet sphere, per the 1944 Moscow Conference.)

But to be perfectly clear on the Warsaw Pact nations "gobbled" by the USSR: East Germany. USA and UK **GAVE** East Germany to the USSR. USA had an atom bomb THEN. USA knew the future consequences. USA knew who the USSR was. But USA gave the USSR 108,333 sq. km (41,828 sq mi) and 18,000,000 people in E. Germany. GAVE THEM.
And the USSR was still 20 years away from having an ICBM nuclear bomb. So even this was not part of Soviet/Russia nuclear threats.

But compare East Germany to the Donetsk and Luhansk - here is the math:
Donetsk Oblast: 26,517 sq. km (10,238 sq mi)
Luhansk Oblast: 26,684 sq. km (10,303 sq mi)
-- Barely half of the territory of East Germany. - and with about 6 million people (certainly not that NOW) - not even a third of East Germany.

But **THIS** is where we are going to "draw the line" with nuclear-powered Russia.

Sidenote: When did the USSR invade North Korea and North Vietnam? Because the Korean Peninsula was divided in half after Japanese surrender in 1945 by USA and USSR - and
I know of the Việt Minh 1945 Revolution.
Click to expand...
You are obfuscating the present day with historical realities.
Today right now these post soviet satellite nations have rejected Russias influence but choice.
When do you draw the line. I don’t know? How about when an independent nation by its own will seeks its own independence. What was done in the past is real but it does not dictate or spell out how geopolitical decisions are made today. Many of those geopolitical actions you refer to in the past were the wrong ones to make.

Simply by having a nuclear arsenal does not and never should have been a right to enforce its nations will against others with force.
That is what your proposing here. They have the bomb and therefor they can do what ever the hell they want with smaller nations around them.
Putin’s Russia has played this gambit in several smaller neighbors already and got away with it.

They west has said no more! It is really that simple, Putin’s bluff has been called.

So now we wait the deal is with Putin will he escalate or will he fold.
You can argue against it but that is where we are.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
Yeah. This is where we are going to draw the line. Otherwise there is going to be a next time. And a next time. And a next.
Click to expand...
The truth has been for MONTHS - that Ukraine had won the war (with massive USA/NATO help) to secure 85% of its country in a war with Russia.
That is a massive victory. The idea Ukraine was going to acquire Crimea? Never happening. Out of 603,700 km² of Ukraine, the issue is over 50,000 km² (if that).
So after winning the war for 85% of Ukraine, how many more thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of damage is this war with Russia going to cost Ukraine (who will be expecting the WORLD to pay.). They cannot consider a cease-fire, even?

Genuine question from 40,000,000 Americans in poverty (out of 350M)... how many hundreds of billions does the Ukraine think USA has to give them to continue this war?

Anyone who believes we are going to "end war" really is ignoring human history. I understand the rage and frustration.
But facts are still facts. War will go on. All we can do is minimize it. NOT maximize it.

Regarding history, how did USSR not "stop" after WWII?
USA and UK agreed with the USSR that each of the superpowers had a "sphere" of influence for its own regional safety.
We have chosen to keep making ours larger and Russia's smaller. I understand this. I agree with this, as an American.
But refusing to de-escalate at some point (pretty much right now) is only going to lead to disaster. Over 50,000 km² .

North Korea and North Vietnam? -- **1945** - this was after they were freed from Axis power of Japan.
Because North Korea and North Vietnam - BOTH had their own agendas. These were Southeast Civil Wars. The Soviets picked a side, USA picked a side.
USSR put down revolutions in Hungary (1956) and Warsaw Pact of revolution in Czechlslovokia (1968), but what country did it "conquer"?
These were ALREADY Communist nations. Poland was part of the Warsaw Pact forces against the Czech revolution in 1968.
 
REALHumanRights said:
God forbid we look at the world based on historical realities. :LOL:
Click to expand...
We can and should, but your historical incidents and events do not conclusively shape or impact what is happening right now.
Your comparing geopolitically historical different situations and events to todays reality.

How should have Eastern Europe been reestablished and organized after ww2 does not reflect the realities of what’s going on in Ukraine today.
The geopolitical world has changed and Putin has challenged it with war.
The west has decided that no more will they accept this.
That’s it, the historical world events you cite are all mostly true.
But when Putin made his decision to invade and the west decided they would provide weapons en-mass along with a full scope of signet capabilities.
Well the the historic precedents no longer apply because the real world change has come to fruition. Yalts, Minsk, Brussels agreement became historical irrelevant the moment war was engaged.

It just simply matter anymore. As a solder might say we’re in the shit now, time to fight the fight we have now not talk about how combat was done in WW 1 or 2.
You fight the fight you have not the fight you wished or believed it to be.
War is and extension of Diplomacy and Putin broke the rules invading a sovereign state. A nation of which which TODAY Europe and the US has decided they have a vested interest in the outcome of this invasion.
It is as simple as that. You can site all of the historic precedent you want. It simply does not apply to the expressed interest and choices of the nations on either side.
Like it, hate it makes no difference.
The war will grind on Russia will lose ground, Russian will or won’t use a nuke. The west might or might not respond in kind. Even if a nuke is used against Ukraine the west does not have to respond in kind. If Ukraine chooses to continue to fight after a strike the war continues and Russia still loses. And loses as an pariah nation for resorting to nuclear blackmail and still failing in its war time goals.
 
Seriously said:
We can and should, but your historical incidents and events do not conclusively shape or impact what is happening right now.
Your comparing geopolitically historical different situations and events to todays reality.

How should have Eastern Europe been reestablished and organized after ww2 does not reflect the realities of what’s going on in Ukraine today.
The geopolitical world has changed and Putin has challenged it with war.
The west has decided that no more will they accept this.
That’s it, the historical world events you cite are all mostly true.
But when Putin made his decision to invade and the west decided they would provide weapons en-mass along with a full scope of signet capabilities.
Well the the historic precedents no longer apply because the real world change has come to fruition. Yalts, Minsk, Brussels agreement became historical irrelevant the moment war was engaged.

It just simply matter anymore.
Click to expand...
Sadly, I agree. All we can do is circle the wagons with our loved ones, plan for the worst, hope for the best.

But once Russia and USA escalate there is no "winning" for anyone.
USA could only win, by not becoming part of the belligerents. We are long past that and on the edge of open warfare.
Once a nuclear power, whether it is Russia, or another country challenges the USA modern superpower hegemony, others will follow.
This is not even yet the end of the beginning, but that may be in sight.
 
REALHumanRights said:
Sadly, I agree. All we can do is circle the wagons with our loved ones, plan for the worst, hope for the best.

But once Russia and USA escalate there is no "winning" for anyone.
USA could only win, by not becoming part of the belligerents. We are long past that and on the edge of open warfare.
Once a nuclear power, whether it is Russia, or another country challenges the USA modern superpower hegemony, others will follow.
This is not even yet the end of the beginning, but that may be in sight.
Click to expand...
There is no need to escalate, the geopolitical ramifications of Russia using a nuke in Ukraine would be devastating for Russia.
No one, not China India the US Europe would accept them doing it because it destabilizes all of their own geopolitical engagements. No one would accept, the UN would go ape shit!
The only groups that would cheer would be jihadist across Indonesia Mid East and in Africa Christian’s killing Christian’s what could be better for a jihadist.
Russia using a nuke at this point in the war would be like bitch slapping yourself.
Ukraine could just keep pushing them back to Russia. It would be tragic for the region
But they just do not have any …any conceivable justification to launch a nuke in Ukraine.
They started the war, the west went all in on military support and the Ukrainians have shown themselves I believe to be pretty aggressive fighters.
It’s just not going well for Putin right now not well at all. I suspect at this point if he gave the order to launch the Politburo would remove him.
Those men exist to rule their kingdoms in Russia and make money. Nukes flying are extremely counter productive to that end.
I am not dumping this all back at your as a rebuttal to shut you down or refute you.
It’s just the way I see it. This dirty bomb thing is weird as hell. There is zero productive reason for Ukraine to set off a dirty bomb in regions there fighting and dying for and gaining.
It really seems to me to be a tragic attempt At theatrics.
To what end - initiate talks and try and slow Ukraines push to the boarder.

When Kherson falls back into Ukraines hands. The momentum will only increase. It looks like today the fight for Kherson is fully engaged and Russians are rolling out.
Negotiations might happen soon but if Russia does not at least roll back to the prewar boarders then the negotiations will be dead on arrival.
 
Last edited:
Seriously said:
There is no need to escalate, the geopolitical ramifications of Russia using a nuke it Ukraine would be devastating for Russia.
No one not China India the US Europe.
The only groups that would cheer would be jihadist across Indonesia Mid East and in Africa,
Russia is using a nuke at this point in the war would be like bitch slapping yourself.
Ukraine could just keep pushing them back to Russia. It would be tragic for the region
But they just do not have any …any conceivable justification for launch a nuke in Ukraine.
They started the war the west went all in on military support and the Ukrainian have shown themselves I believe to be pretty aggressive fighters.
It’s just not going well for Putin right now not well at all. I suspect at this point if he gave the order to launch the Politburo would remove him.
Those men exist to rule their kingdoms in Russia and make money. Nukes flying are extremely counter productive to that end.
I am not dumping this all back at your as a rebuttal to shut you down or refute you.
It’s just the way I see it. This dirty bomb thing is weird as hell. There is zero productive reason for Ukraine to set off a dirty bomb in regions there fighting for and gaining.
It really seems to me to be a tragic attempt At theatrics.
To what end initiate talks and try and slow Ukraines ouch to the boarder.

When Kherson falls back into Ukraines hands. The momentum will only increase. It looks like today the fight for Kherson is fully engaged and Russians are rolling out.
Negotiations might happen soon but if Russia does not at least roll back to the prewar boarders then the negotiations will be dead on arrival.
Click to expand...
Seriously said:
The only groups that would cheer would be jihadist across Indonesia Mid East and in Africa
Click to expand...
And that’s what concerns me at home. If something, dirty, nuke, bio whatever were to be detonated over there, i fear the sleeper cells here would be given the go. I know, maybe tin foil hat thinking, but it’s a concern, to me.
 
Irag8er said:
And that’s what concerns me at home. If something, dirty, nuke, bio whatever were to be detonated over there, i fear the sleeper cells here would be given the go. I know, maybe tin foil hat thinking, but it’s a concern, to me.
Click to expand...
That’s always a possibility. If this war took a new even more tragic turn. As you said some other foreign group might see this as a good time to kick it off themselves.
 
The Russian Ministry of Defense alerted forces and means to work in conditions of radioactive contamination


Lieutenant-General Igor Kirillov, head of the Radiation, Chemical and Biological Defense Forces of the Russian Armed Forces, said that the use of a "dirty bomb" would lead to the contamination of several thousand square meters of territory. According to the Ministry of Defense, Kyiv can accuse Moscow of using the bomb.

The Ministry of Defense emphasized that "the forces and means are brought to readiness to perform tasks in conditions of radioactive contamination."

“The detonation of a radiological explosive device will inevitably lead to radioactive contamination of the area over an area of up to several thousand square meters,” Mr. Kirillov said at a briefing on threats to radiation safety. He added that the Ministry of Defense has already organized work to counter possible provocations from Ukraine. In addition, the Ministry of Defense reported that it has information about Kyiv's contacts with representatives of the UK on the possible acquisition of technology to create nuclear."

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5632591
 
'New, troubling developments' with Russia's nuclear arsenal -US official
Jerusalem Post on New York Times: "The report comes as Russia accuses Ukraine of preparing to use a dirty bomb or even a nuclear bomb as Russia continues its invasion in Ukraine.

Original NYT Report: "Defense Department officials were surprised when two days later, Mr. Shoigu requested another call, at 7:30 a.m. Sunday, in which he accused Ukraine of preparing to use a dirty bomb, two officials said. The allegation, which the United States has said was baseless, spooked senior defense and military officials, who expressed concern that Moscow might be using the false flag as a distraction, masking some other more ominous development."

"One senior U.S. official said there were new, troubling developments involving Russia’s nuclear arsenal. The official asked for anonymity and declined to provide any details, given the sensitivity of the issue. At a Pentagon briefing on Monday, a senior U.S. military officer said there was no indication that Mr. Putin had made a decision to use unconventional weapons — nuclear, chemical or biological arms — but offered no details. American officials have said they had seen no movement of any of Russia’s 2,000 or so tactical nuclear weapons. Because the weapons are small, it is unclear whether they would see the weapons — though they may see or hear activity by Russia’s nuclear-trained forces."
 
Irag8er said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1584909209493274626
Just obtained the letter Russia sent to the UN Security Council on Ukrainian "dirty bombs." It's way out there. It includes scenarios about how Ukraine would indigenously produce a so-called "dirty bomb" using its existing nuclear power plants.
Click to expand...
It is definitely strange, Irag8er. We assume (naturally) because it is so "out there" that it is 100% fiction.
We believe that. We don't know that. Those are two different things.
Given the advocacy (understandable from Ukraine frustrated and enraged POV) among some for "destruction" of Russia, we don't 100 percent know what has happened.
But we do know what we need to have happen. IMO - we don't get there with continuous escalation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom