Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,312 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 4 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Can Starmer go ahead with the missile permission without US approval, embroiling NATO in war with Russia?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Donald Trump Jr:
“At a time when American leaders should be focused on finding a diplomatic off-ramp to a war that should never have been allowed to take place, the Biden-Harris administration is instead pursuing a policy that Russia says it will interpret as an act of war. In the words of Vladimir Putin, long-range strikes in Russia “will mean that NATO countries — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia.
Some American analysts believe Putin is bluffing, and favor calling his bluff. As the Times reported, “‘Easing the restrictions on Western weapons will not cause Moscow to escalate,’17 former ambassadors and generals wrote in a letter to the administration this week. ‘We know this because Ukraine is already striking territory Russia considers its own — including Crimea and Kursk — with these weapons and Moscow’s response remains unchanged.’”
These analysts are mistaking restraint for weakness. In essence, they are advocating a strategy of brinksmanship. Each escalation — from HIMARS to cluster munitions to Abrams tanks to F-16s to ATACMS — draws the world closer to the brink of Armageddon. Their logic seems to be that if you goad a bear five times and it doesn’t respond, it is safe to goad him even harder a sixth time.
When all this began with the abandonment of the Russia-EU pipeline, it was Germany and the EU reluctant in supporting the US/UK anti-Russia stance, but now it’s the EU urging permission for missiles to hit Russia regardless of Putin’s warning, and following the UK, which has left the EU!
Why has the EU become again more gung ho for war than even the US?On brink of nuclear war.
…………………
It might appear so but it is much more likely just sabre rattling. After all, it does seem very much like Russia is winning the war in Ukraine and will soon achieve the objective of taking the whole of Donbas before focusing on Kherson and maybe Odesa. Would they jeopardise this by engaging in a nuclear exchange with NATO? More likely they will just absorb a few missiles and plough on. If they are going to use nuclear missiles probably Ukraine itself will be the first target. Ukraine, not being a member of NATO, how can NARO respond in kind? In the meantime, the destruction caused will serve as a warning to NATO. I don’t think this is likely, though, and despite the warmongering talk I don’t think the EU is keen to have a nuclear exchange with Russia (we already know that from previous posts in this thread)
Points taken. But can Putin afford to keep demolishing his credibility as a head of state by going out of his way to issue extreme and sensational bluffs?
The EU has no military wing or powers if only because some member states are not in NAT0 (Austria, Ireland, Cyprus, Malta). On the other hand, some European countries are not in NATO (Norway, Iceland, Albania).
All the EU does is fund the Ukraine state’s administrative functions.
The only European country that has independent nuclear arms is France (Britain is dependent on the US, in fact is a very small part of the US arsenal, which couldn’t really be used without US support).
More on France’s nuclear pea-shooter here:
They all seem abysmally ignorant of how any use of these weapons, even just by one side (which it wouldn’t be) would result in a nuclear winter and mass starvation. They are actually toying with the idea of using them or “dealing with” an attack; and that is what’s frightening. They ARE stupid enough!
You seem to be missing the distinction between “tactical” and “strategic” nuclear weapons:
“A tactical nuclear weapon (TNW) or non-strategic nuclear weapon (NSNW) is a nuclear weapon that is designed to be used on a battlefield in military situations, mostly with friendly forces in proximity and perhaps even on contested friendly territory. Generally smaller in explosive power, they are defined in contrast to strategic nuclear weapons, which are designed mostly to be targeted at the enemy interior far away from the war front against military bases, cities, towns, arms industries, and other hardened or larger-area targets to damage the enemy’s ability to wage war. As of 2024, no tactical nuclear weapons have ever been used in combat.“
The speculation has been that Russia might respond to NATO’s provocation of allowing Ukraine to use NATO long range missiles to attack Russian territory by using tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine’s armed forces.
If they were to be used this would not result in the “nuclear winter and mass starvation” you fear. “Only” a chernobyl incident (I guess).
It’s becoming tedious trying to convince you that the end of the world is not nigh as you insist on wanting to believe.
Translation from Russian
“Britain is currently the main actor in the escalation of our war. The United States is immersed in the electoral process. Trump’s victory risks leading to a total revision of the strategy towards Russia and Ukraine. That is why the main player in the West today is London.
The invasion of the Kursk region, early attempts to land in Crimea, strikes deep into Russia are typical of the British, who always try to achieve military results through information and political methods. The situation at the front is more than sad for us. By the end of the year, we will reach a complete deadlock in Donbass. That is why the British decided to compensate for the failures by “transferring the war” to Russia for escalation.Russia managed to continue the offensive without declaring mobilization, which is why Bankova is now looking for formats to transform the Kursk operation so that the Kremlin is forced to do so.
However, the current stage will not end there. We should expect strikes with Western weapons deep into the Russian Federation. The goal is to provoke protests and a collapse of Putin’s ratings.
This is the final chord before the negotiating track. Next year, we should not expect new counter-offensives by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. There are no material, human or moral resources for this. Therefore, until the end of the year, the West will try to negotiate the most advantageous positions for itself. Who will receive the response for the strikes on Russia? Of course, we will. After all, it will not be Paris and London that will be struck…
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2024/0919/putin-ukraine-war-russia-nuclear-war-ww3
” One of Russia’s top security experts, Alexei Arbatov, told the daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta this week that the drift of events is very dangerous because of the widespread belief in the West that Russia would never use nuclear arms.
“This is a very serious misconception: at some point, nuclear weapons will be used, despite the risk of escalation and general catastrophe,” he said.”
If nuclear weapons are used – and it is a big “if” – they will probably only be tactical nuclear weapons and confined to Ukraine (a non-NATO country). I can’t imagine the Russian regime being so foolish as to send a strategic nuclear missile to say, the UK, (which seems to be the most aggressive of the NATO countries) and thereby risking a NATO-wide response. That would be catastrophic for both sides
I was going to say the same that, if Russia does use nuclear weapons in retaliation for further provocation from NATO these will be tactical ones used against Ukraine. Also, of course, their spokespersons are upping the rhetoric to try to dissuade NATO from allowing Ukraine to use on Russia longer range NATO missiles.
I know we always say Labour Tory, Same Old Story but it is a bit surprising that Starmer should continue Borys’s dream of being a war leader. You’d have thought Labour might have stood up to the unbalanced generals who want to go further even than the Pentagon. But then all Labour governments have supported Britain’s “imperialist” pretensions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.