Putin issues a nuclear warning to the West over Ukraine : worldnews

[–] Kualk@lemm.ee 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Russia tries to keep Poland, Baltic states and other unfriendly bordering nations from getting involved in any military action against Russia by making it clear that response will be nuclear.

The desire to involve other nations against Russia goes up with Ukraine slowly loosing war against Russia. Tactical encirclement of 72nd Ukrainian battalion in Ugledar is the most recent example of losses on Ukrainian side.

Change to Nuclear weapons doctrine tries to stop opening of 2nd war front against Russia. The most likely location would be border between Belorussia and Poland.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 days ago

That's my understanding as well, and hence why Putin explicitly mentioned an attack on Belarus in his statement.

[–] superkret@feddit.org -2 points 2 days ago

The blood of the killed Russian soldiers is just enough for Putin to draw all his red lines.

[–] myself@lemmy.ml 21 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Again?

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes, but this time for realsies!

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Are you claiming there was already a recent change to Russia's nuclear doctrine, I'd be very interested to see a source.

[–] zurohki@aussie.zone 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, it's the opposite - they're saying that this isn't a change in Russia's behaviour.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 days ago (6 children)

I know what they're saying, but you seem to have misunderstood what I said. To my knowledge this is the first change in Russia's nuclear doctrine, so there's no "again" here. This is a significant change in nuclear use policy, and it would be sheer idiocy to dismiss it lightly.

[–] zurohki@aussie.zone -4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Russia's actual nuclear policy has been "fire nukes if Putin says so" for decades. This paperwork doesn't represent a real change.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 days ago

No it hasn't and it's incredible that a grown ass person genuinely believes this.

[–] lazynooblet@lazysoci.al 2 points 2 days ago

It is the next step in a continued escalation of the nuclear threat.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 2 days ago

Putin's final warning. It's like China's final warning but less serious.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Thirty years of shrugging off promises, agreements, and red lines is how we got to 90 seconds to midnight.

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io -1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Is this a yearly average? I don’t think we’re closer to nuclear war than we were during the Cuban missile crisis.

I mean if the Russian leadership wants to die over a piece of land (because they don’t already have enough?), then sure by all means.

[–] Kualk@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

That is a natural reaction of person that tracks only western MSM and doesn’t pay attention to gradual rise in western politician attitudes.

Russian nuclear doctrine change reflects changed attitude in western propaganda.

You must not be aware of the following developments. Poland is already primed to fight. Baltic states openly talk about preemptive strike on Russia. Western long range weapons are pretty much cleared to strike “old” Russian territory. Country on southern side of Russia is set to become 2nd Ukraine. NATO general claims that Russia will not use nukes under any circumstances and thus justifies any level of involvement.

In this environment expansion of nuclear deterrence is pretty much the only option from Russian point of view.

Please note that inside Russia there are calls to strike from Kiev to London due to crossing of previously announced red lines. Someone was right here. Putin is moderate if not outright inactive.

The above creates potentially unstable environment inside Russia and may give Russian government additional motivation to use nukes at location of regional importance.

There are some reasons for western side to provoke Russia, which nobody here wants to discuss or acknowledge.

It shall come as no surprise that NATO has larger military than Russia. Russia never made it a secret that the only way to balance out conventional strength difference is with nukes.

The calculation on Russian side is that they will destroy large amount of opposing side military and equipment. It should be enough to stop any meaningful ground action.

So, reality is very close to getting out of control.

All it takes is a small provocation on the border side that looks like invasion even if it is just a large scale disruption in communication on the border line and incursion of some military equipment.

The later happened already on Belorussian border in last 12 months. So the scenario was tested in part by Poland.

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io -2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Big kid punches little kid “Stop” says little kid

Big kid punches other little kid “Stop” says other little kid

Big kid punches first little kid again and takes his lunch money “Stop” says little kids

Bunch of little kids band together “If you punch again we’re going to punch you back” (raises fists in intimidating stance)

Big kid grumbles and talks about running over all the little kids with his car…

——

NATO isn’t stupid. As a whole, they don’t want to invade Russia. They are there to deter future territorial land grabs and they want to maintain the status quo as it’s good for trade. Quality of life is pretty good or getting better on this side of the fence.

I get it, a whole bunch of kids around your house can be intimidating. They have access to the neighborhood road (Polish corridor). Your little brother started thinking they were cool.

The way this could have and should have gone about is more trade, more connectivity, more upward mobility. But your ruling class got all weird about that, can’t be having western ideals infect the population, they were losing power. And so Russia went the xenophobic path and now we are here.

All the rhetoric. All the hype. All the saber rattling. It’s a form of control, to keep the Russian population in support of this war. To keep them scared so that Putin and his ilk stay in power. It’s a very myopic way of seeing the world.

They’ve rattled so hard that walking away isn’t an option anymore. Too much treasure and blood lost. It would shake Russia to its core. The Russian Vietnam as it were, right on your doorstep.

I don’t know what the end game is here. NATO is not going to capitulate. Russian leadership are backing themselves into a corner.

[–] lazynooblet@lazysoci.al 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

This rings true to me. I'm a westerner and I see how geo-politics is being handled and it really is a bunch of kids.

Not trying to do whataboutism, but its important to note that the insights on how Russian population are controlled with fear is echo'd throughout the world. US and its now inbred hatred for the word "communism", and its forced relation with Russia, etc is dissapointing.

If we manage to survive the current crisis /and/ manage to de-escelate, it will take generations of peaceful teachings for large powers to actually calm down. I find this scenerio unlikely.

[–] Kualk@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

NATO isn’t stupid. As a whole, they don’t want to invade Russia. They are there to deter future territorial land grabs

Non-aggression statement dispelled

on September 18, 2024:

https://www.uawire.org/estonia-signals-readiness-to-preemptively-strike-russia-to-defend-nato

Nobody defined what Russian preparation for aggression looks like.

[–] Kualk@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

Quality of life is pretty good or getting better on this side of the fence.

European consumer price index (CPI) rose 18% in last 2 years:

https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/consumer-price-index-cpi

There is no public data after 2022 on happiness of EU population. How strange.

[–] GenkiFeral@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

more than a piece of land - its about securing their borders. NATO is danged-near surrounding them.

[–] Kualk@lemm.ee 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

At this point it is more than just territorial control.

It is survival of the country as a whole. At higher level it is survival of the system on both sides.

The military operation has highlighted multiple issues in Russian system. While issues are significant, they are not critical and system currently manages to pretend like issues don’t exist.

The western system side is also experiencing problems. The problems are conceptually different, but the system is also in pretend mode like nothing is happening.

Side observer can’t really guess which system is going to crash first, if crash is coming. It is also possible that none will crash, and world will split into two or more centers of economic gravity.

I am not even looking at role China is playing in all of this. I can just say, that China gets sometimes inaccurate coverage in Western MSM, which results in faulty expectations.

[–] tellah@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 days ago (22 children)

Right, so we all better just let the Russian regime take whatever it wants, such as Ukrainian territory, in this case. Or else they will use nuclear bombs. And it’ll be everyone else’s fault, because we didn’t want to let them take whatever they wanted.

Russia is totally the good guy here, and if we don’t let them do whatever they want, they’ll use nukes and we will deserve it.

Am I getting that right?

[–] smb@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Right, so we all better just let the Russian regime take whatever it wants,

so they can keep land taken by force like diego garcia, hawaii, sioux nation territory* or countless others were taken by force once and the new "owner" kept and exploited these lands since then? yes, that would be awful.

*(thats also where that "monument" stands that stands as an example to remind the the world which nation will never ever stick to laws, not even to its very own ones, but instead humilitate other peoples religions like it i.e. also does in hawaii)

no! i think we really should make such countries give the taken-by-force land back to their rightful owners immediately plus a compensation that is worth that name plus whatever it takes to undo any destruction or change or poisoning with whatever chemicals done to the land under such evil invaders (thinking of the enewetak atoll right now 😢)

And maybe we should concentrate on the cultures that were completely(!) deported long ago first, to at least give their children back the land that was taken from their parents or grandparents or grandgrandparents a.s.o. so diego garcia seems to be the easiest one, the current invaders there don't need it for a living and don't even call it their "home", so just make them leave the captured land that is not theirs now. rescueing a whole civilisation and culture from evilish invaders was never easier! then of course those who's ancestors had been deported and enslaved, those need to be compensated for but that cannot be aligned in money especially not since that money happens to be printed by those who's ancestors did the deportation and enslavement and the money presses were at least indirectly build with slave labour, so other solutions need to be found that are not only accepted by those of the deported families who live today but really(!) compensate for centuries of abuse. also the debt of not yet abolishing slavery needs to be compensated for as it is at least a slap in their faces every day and this should be compensated like a slap in the face of an officer today, but for each single day per affected person living during that time since slavery was first introduced into those laws until it is completely abolished (this would only be the compennsation for not yet abolishing slavery). also those countries where those long ago enslaved had been deported from have to be compensated for all the losses including but not limited to all losses that resulted or may have resulted in development that did not happen due to that deporting and enslaving their families friends and firefighters ages ago. also all damages that happened after that deportation like robbing of resources underground their land that they could not defend any more due to that deporting like robbed diamonds, robbed gold and robbed oil and maybe lots of other robbed resources too. this compensatoon needs to be done throughoutly and complete, just to give the russians that example that the west actually "can" do something good and would stand to rightful living together and not only robbing the world until everything is gone like the west does now. if the west would stand to its so called values, a war against robbers would be a good one, but as it is right now, fighing another robber nation would just be a fight about who can rob more and stands last which is a bad thing or do you actually like that idea?

so on which robber nations side are you? you seemed to want to sound like being on the russian side, so tell me how many nations had been invaded and robbed and enslaved by russia in the last ... lets say 400 years ? (next step would be to compare that with western nations to be at least complete when determining which robbers side would be the more civilised one to know which side to stand to - which seemed to me to be your real question here)

Or else they will use nuclear bombs.

i guess giving back sioux nations land, hawaii and diego garcia to their rightful owners and start compensating the damages done to other nations would put real moral pressure on the russians, but until then, the only thing that happens when "the west" keeps bubbling about the values they don't even fight for within their own captive taken lands is that one evil side shouts at the other but using bombs instead of real actions of good.

have a nice day!

[–] tellah@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No reasonable person will ever be convinced by this unhinged wall of text that tries to equivocate between European colonialism in North America over the past 400 years, and Russian imperialism happening literally right now.

Insane whataboutism - but in any case, it doesn’t change the fact that what the Moscow regime is doing is wrong.

[–] smb@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

the civilisation of diego garcia people (or how the islands are named by them and how they name themselves) are forced away from their homeland 'right now', not only in the past.

hawaiian country is destroyed 'right now' by their invaders military, not only in the past.

not to mention how 'law enforcement' acts on people without that secure pale skin today in the us, which is happening 'right now', not only in the past and slavery is protected by us law 'right now', not only in the past.

Can sioux people walk their rightful land right now freely and follow their religion? ay, no they can't, some invadors don't allow that but keep captured their land 'right now', not only in the past.

it happens right now what you seem to want to see as some "history" things, so following your argumentation, the invasion of ukraine was in the past too (right? there are little changes nowadays and ukraine even got some land from russia, right?) so should we:?

not talk about it as the initial invasion already is history?
only talk about it cause its "the others" who do it?
ignore all wars and genocides supported by the west but claim other invaders do be the evil ones but the west to be the goodies despite all the warcrimes committed?
... (your ideas here to maxbe stop maybe ALL invaders) ?

after how many years some evil act becomes "legalized by history" in your opinion? is it 20 years, 50years or 100years? you already complained about 400years to be too much, so plz tell me what you think is the time a land must be forcefully captured to 'rightfully' change ownership to the brutish invader? whatever number "the west" would say would be enough to legalize such past crimes, that would be exactly the number of years the west would in the same sentence tell russia to have to keep ukraine captive so that the status quo would be as legalized as in those countries or cities captured by the west already beeing said to be "historically legitimised" as the west seems to accept that as "rightful ownership" then. since the west seems to never give back once invaded land, it tells russia and israel to actually do the same and capture as much as they can now to "legally own"(style of "the west") it in a few decades, while israel already invaded and captured land in the (i think) northwest, they are driven by the wests real-world-definition of their so called "rightful ownership" to invade other countries now, and not only in some future.

maybe i didn't write it for people like you (how could i know u?) but for others who might want to read whole thoughts instead of only cheap and short propaganda. The evil ones always want the masses to forget at least most of what they did and "short and incomplete" is the tool of propaganda.

load more comments (21 replies)

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 days ago

It's Wednesday my comrades!

World News

Rules: