Proposals had been made to change Russia's nuclear doctrine to allow for attacking any non-nuclear state that had the participation or support of a nuclear state, Putin said.

Proposals had been made to change Russia’s nuclear doctrine to allow for attacking any non-nuclear state that had the participation or support of a nuclear state, Putin said.

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.worldEnglish
      112·
      2 months ago

      no tools

      Its the same thing with narc parents. They got nothing but the roof over your head so all day they make threats about it. They abuse the tiniest bit of power incessantly to create a dopamine skinner box of a life for themselves

  • Z3k3@lemmy.worldEnglish
    27·
    2 months ago

    Ukraine is not attacking Russia. It’s a counter attack.

    Stopping those is easy with this 1 simple trick

  • InvertedParallax@lemm.eeEnglish
    24·
    2 months ago

    I mean, the lesson here is to give Ukraine back the nukes we traded them in exchange for guarantees of territorial integrity in the Budapest memorandum.

    We failed, we did not protect your territory, we admit we failed.

    So have some nukes with irbms and TERs as a consolation prize.

    Damn putin, you sure outsmarted us…

  • Kyrgizion@lemmy.worldEnglish
    275·
    2 months ago

    None of their nukes will ever get off the launching pad before exploding harmlessly. These empty threats ring hollow, as always.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.caEnglish
    18·
    2 months ago

    Putin issues a nuclear warning #5285 to the West over Ukraine

    FTFY

    Also: why won’t you just let me play land grab and genocide? Why won’t you just let me fuck people over? Why won’t you just let me be a genocidal maniac when I want to? You’re all a bunch of party poopers!

  • tal@lemmy.todayOPEnglish
    151·
    2 months ago

    I suppose “any non-nuclear state” here is intended to be read as “Ukraine”.

  • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    14·
    2 months ago

    Mutually assured destruction was supposed to be a deterrent to anyone using nukes. Not to enable an aggressor force to do what they want without repercussions out of fear that they would use nukes. If they use nukes, at a minimum they’ll no longer exist. Probably along with the rest of us.

    • BeMoreCareful@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      2 months ago

      MAD exists between two nuclear armies. If you nuke us we’ll nuke you back. Ukraine gave up it’s nukes (from the Soviet era). No country will ever make that mistake again.

      It’s still a deterrent, just not here.

    • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.worldEnglish
      52·
      2 months ago

      Probably along with the rest of us.

      This is an age-old myth. If any of Puta’s nuclear delivery systems were actually successful in delivering the largest payload in their arsenal and detonating it, greater than 99% of the global population of humans would remain unharmed, even long term. And the likelihood that even one would be successful is exceedingly low.

      While we certainly don’t want thousands killed in a single strike, ruining an area for years and causing global panic, we are exceptionally prepared to prevent the very few that take flight from making it to their destination.

      The best shot at a detonation Putler has is driving the device to a target in a well-disguised box truck, just like any other terrorist.

      • Womble@lemmy.worldEnglish
        83·
        2 months ago

        There is no reason to think Russia’s entire strategic nuclear arsenal is unusable. It’s entirely possible a decent chunk of it is due to corruption and neglect, but even if 10% work that’s still 160 city destroying nukes being detonated across Europe and North America if the world goes full MAD. That probably wouldn’t wipe out humanity but it would lead to hundreds of millions of people dying. Not something to be taken lightly.

        • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.worldEnglish
          22·
          2 months ago

          There is absolutely no scenario in which 160 or even 16 cities are hit with anything Putin launches.

          More than 30 capable nations, including the U.S. (who eclipses the rest combined) have been focusing their primary defense and intelligence efforts on countering Russia’s arsenal for the last 60 years. The most likely outcome of a nuclear attempt from Russia is that not even a single city is hit.

          The only effective nuclear offense Russia has is fear-mongering about a nuclear offense.

          • Womble@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            2 months ago

            Wishing something to be true doesnt make it so. I havent seen any credible assessments that Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal is so bad that it would be more that 90% non-functional. That’s an insane level of broken that there is just no reason to assume it.

            Put another way, way more than 10% of their tanks, planes, artillery and tactical ballistic missiles work, why would you assume that their strategic nukes are significantly worse?

            All of which isnt to say we should cower before Putin’s obviously empty nuclear threat, let Ukraine release the storm shadows! But to go from there to lol dumb Russians cant fire a single ICBM is just not credible.

  • spicystraw@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    2 months ago

    I just dont get it. The man rules the world’s largest country by landmass and is richer than the richest people in the universe, what the fuck are you going to do with more land like Ukraine. More importantly, why do so many people have to die for it. And how the fuck are you so incapable of admiting being in the wrong that you threten to nuke the whole world. Why are people in power like this.

    • Brcht@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      2 months ago

      Aside from nationalistic pride, there are several practical reasons:

      1. Azof sea + Crimean peninsula are a natural chockepoint for Russia’s exports from the river Don, basically all Russia’s black sea inports and exports pass though there

      2. Donbass is incredibly rich in mineral resources

      3. Ukraine’s ports are where the largest Soviet Union ships were built, Russia can’t build larger frigades/aircraft carriers without Ukraine’s facilities (mainly Mykolaiv port I believe).

      4. The dominance over the black sea is extremely important for Russia, as it may affect both its nuclear deterrence and its control over Georgia which opens the gates to central asia (yes Turkey is in Nato but it plays its own game)

      Also consider that Russia started the war hoping for a quick ukrainian capitulation, so they would have absorbed the hugely important ukrainian aerospace industry, and its massive farming industry.

      They probably ‘just’ want the Donbass and the coast now, so the last point is no longer relevant, but it played a role in deciding to push forward with the invasion.

    • Eximius@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      2 months ago

      At some point the argument that consolidating more oil and pushing for more gas/oil monopoly would have been part of the play. But now, any unbelievably mediocre economist would just say the roi is somewhere 5 generations in the future (if at all) and the sunken cost fallacy is raping Russia liberally through all echelons.

      Not really saying there is logic to the madness, other than some internal motivations (apart from delusions of grandeur imperialistic pursuits).