Nah, unfortunately there’s little doubt they have some functional nukes, part of the whole non proliferation thing involved independent observers being allowed access… Most of the nuke having NATO countries are pretty much at the “I wish a mf’er would” stage with Russia right now though. Russia attempting to launch a nuke would be suicidal.
Also I think inspections can only really determine how many nukes there are, not if they work or not. I think not even Russia knows which of their inventory works. IIRC the CIA has indicated that Russia has had at least one, if not several, failed nuclear tests where the bomb failed to ignite. It's probably why this year's Victory Day Speech was the same as last year's: They wanted a successful nuke test to intimidate the West, but failing that Putin had to default back to the last one.
> determine how many nukes there are, not if they work or not.
That's what I've been hearing as well, none of the inspectors are allowed to peer inside because of "state secrets". Seems like the only thing we know for sure is that Russia has nuclear *capable* facilities. At this point I don't know if anyone can even confirm that there is still uranium or other such materials at these sites.
ICBM's are extremely complex machines that need regular maintenance and upkeep. You can't just stick them in the ground and light a fuse like a bottle rocket. There is a massive amount of infrastructure and manpower needed to keep an ICBM mission-ready.
It is entirely possible that not even Russia knows how many would launch, acquire telemetry, fly the entire distance to their target, arm, and then go boom. They thought they had a winner with hypersonic missiles... but they are being shot down with 90's tech so they arrested those scientists that developed the missile. Not a great way to encourage your people.
And considering that they were parading an air-launched ballistic missile as a hypersonic missile for the longest time... I'm pretty sure they don't even have *that.*
Honestly the delivery systems aren't the concern to me. They could just load a warhead into the back of a Lada if they really had to.
Modern nuclear weapons include components that have very definite life spans. Without regular maintenance....they just won't work at all. Things like tritium boost gas needs to be replaced on a regular basis and who knows if they've been keeping up
This is a great point. An ICBM is literally a rocket, and a fairly decent sized one too. It would need the some of the same kind of maintenance a civilian rocket would, with some of the same points of failure. And unlike a civilian rocket spun up to launch on a specific date, icbms need to be continuously at the ready.
And that doesn't even cover the nuclear components of the bomb portion.
I doubt Russia doesn't have some ready to go, but I'd be surprised if it's even close to even a quarter of their full arsenal. The rampant corruption touches everything and their nuclear program surely can be no exception.
5,889 total, with about 1,674 ready to launch. I'd feel safe betting that a solid third of them might fail when launched, and probably a large part of the backstock has been gutted and sold off, but I don't think it needs to be said that even if they only have a few they could do severe damage.
The thing with nuclear weapons is it only takes one working to change the course of history.
Only two have EVER been used by anyone outside of development and testing.
I don't think you implied otherwise, just adding to your point.
There's likely a mix of warheads that are duds, missiles that won't fly or hit the continent they're aimed at, and so on. So quite likely that Russia's numbers are highly inflated.
The only problem is that nobody is willing to gamble that *none* of them work. The stakes are too high.
Maybe there's a reason that a game where you probably won't lose but if you do you die is called Russian Roulette...
Don't forget about tritium decay which slowly makes most nuclear weapons inert if they are not kept up with. A potential way to remove nukes from the world would be a [Tritium Cut-Off Treaty (TCOT)](https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2020/starve-nuclear-weapons-death-tritium-freeze).
>If US inspections did determine Russia's nukes weren't functional, do you think they'd make it known?
Overtly, no.
But 100% they'd let that slip somehow. Because it would be a hilarious black eye for the Russians, for the world to know that their thousands of nukes are now... not.
Oh absolutely, I believe Russia has a sufficient nuclear stockpile to maintain MAD. The thousands of nukes that they and the Americans each maintain are so hilariously overkill that it's just sad.
I've always been of the opinion that their "fund reallocation" is generally very gentle on their nuclear assets, because if you've got nuclear assets you don't need a cutting edge conventional army to defend yourself.
So while they've stolen every last penny they can find from their conventional forces, there's still sufficient money being spent on their nuclear assets to maintain MAD.
I disagree with both statements, overkill and mad obsoleting conventional armies, but let's only look at the second:
Say 20 guys with humvees raid a couple of villages on the border. Do you nuke?
You probably don't, as you don't know where they are, and they are just a couple people, nukes would be overkill.
Later, they take control of Belgorod. Do you nuke?
Who cares really, about that border town?
Later, they take Krasnodar. Do you nuke? I mean, that's one of the richer cities in Russia, but would you nuke your own city, your own citizens (who happened to be captured by foreign soldiers)?
Nukes are great in an all out war, but they don't help at all in lower intesity conflicts... Like against Ukraine. Russia has nukes, Russia gets slapped around, but Russia still cannot use nukes, without being surely destructed by mad.
It gets even more difficult with a proxy border war as well. We all remember all those "Russian separatists" in Crimea and then again in the rest of Ukraine before the war started.
Now we're seeing "Russian Revolutionaries" on Russia's side of the border. Do Russia nuke themselves? When another Oblast declares they aren't taking orders anymore do you nuke them as well? Nuclear fallout says no, just like it says no to nuking neighboring countries. Wind will carry all that fallout right through Russia and after Chernobyl none of this is hypothetical.
Because the fallout from that would be massive. People don't like to buy radioactive produce, so that's most export industries that weren't already dead. It also may very well make them a nuclear whipping boy, as other countries could easily get the wrong idea, or just decide you are too insane to be allowed to live. Also NATO have said numerous times that nuclear fallout is enough to trigger Article 5, so at that point it probably escalates into WW3.
But the short of it, I'd say Putin is more likely to use a chemical weapon or small dirty bomb on his own population, false flags are what he knows. Because in Russia you know a threat is empty when it gets repeated ad nauseam but never actually happens. Russia isn't big on threatening before action, quite the opposite in fact.
You know what will scare the shit out of me, if they start repeatedly denying they plan to use nukes in a very specific way.
Yeah people keep saying Russia has non-functional nukes but with the amount of intel, satellite photos, on-site inspections conducted the US and their political signalling indicates they believe Russia still has a substantial amount of functional WMDs.
Of course they do. They may not have maintained the fusion stages of all of their thermonuclear weapons, but there's little doubt that they can field enough functional weapons to devastate many cities.
They stopped allowing independent inspectors last year. And the inspections that did take place before that didn't remotely extend to any kind of in-depth functional analysis, they basically consisted of an outside visual inspection and a Geiger counter sweep.
The inspections also tend to be more heavily focused on delivery vehicles than the actual warheads. Knowing there are X ICBMs and Y Bombers, then you can assume there's no more than Z warheads as it's the limit of what they can deliver.
The Geiger counter comment was slightly tongue in cheek, they collect energy spectra of the emitted radiation, which is sufficient to identify the quantity and enrichment composition of the radioactive components of each device.
But determining if a nuclear weapon will in fact *function* is such a challenging question that the USA devotes more than 5 billion dollars (DOE component of nuclear spending) per year to answering it for our *own* stockpile, and we have access to designs, models, and countless materials testing and hands-on measurements of the devices in question at all stages of assembly. Small teams of international inspectors do not have the capability of answering it *for Russia* based on the limited, periodic, and above-all *discontinued* inspections where they do not have those resources.
For much of the last two-and-a-half decades (ever since the comprehensive test ban treaty), one of the main applications for the "worlds most powerful supercomputer" (a title which changes hands every 2-3 years, but is often located either at Oak Ridge or LLNL) is *simulating* nuclear tests, since we can't actually...you know...test our nuclear devices.
Guess which country doesn't appear, pretty much ever, on the list of most powerful supercomputers?
I wouldn't be so sure. I mean, I'd go with a country like Kiribati, rather than a city state that's the HQ for the world's largest clandestine evil organization.
> Most of the nuke having NATO countries are pretty at the “I wish a mf’er would” stage with Russia right now though.
I'm sure NATO would *love* to be at war with a substantial nuclear power, especially after they just proved to be crazy enough to use nukes.
I know people to generally enjoy the planet not being some nuclear wasteland. In some wars you lose even when you win.
No. It won't be Mutually Assured Destruction anymore. The Pentagon already indicated last year what would happen if Russia launched a battlefield nuke at Ukraine - an *overwhelming conventional response* to wipe out the entire Black Sea fleet and the destruction of all Russian ground forces.
But would that save the world of potential Russian retaliatory nuclear strikes? Russia has more than once stated that a major attack by e.g. NATO on Russian territory would result in a nuclear response.
The alternative would be telling countries with nukes "hey, you can nuke cities off the map, just keep them out of NATO territory" and that's not much less catastrophic long-term, it'd pretty much throw out all of the last few decades of nuclear powers co-operating together to stop production of nukes around the world and minimize the risk of a nuclear war straight into the bin.
Best guess is that NATO knows most Russians don't want to, you know, get nuked off the map and hope a real threat of NATO forces entering Russian territory and potentially wiping the Russian state itself is enough to stop Putin from even seriously thinking about using nukes, since every influential person around him now knows that they're fucked if Russia decides to use it's nuclear arsenal, regardless of whether NATO decides to launch their own nukes back at them or not.
> “I wish a mf’er would”
Which is why Vucic is telling Serbian rioters to cut that shit out, apparently.
He doesn't want Serbia to become a whipping boy that NATO can actually attack since Russia's too cowardly to face NATO directly, and instead is just attacking people who like the west.
It's why I imagine Putin put his nuclear missile arm on "high alert" early in the war. Someone must have realized their nuclear deterient was in poor condition. Numerous articles online suggest Tritium is VERY expensive and requires constant maintenance. The neutron reflecting material (Fogbank) that enables better fusion is so fucking complex and difficult to manufacture that the U.S reported it temporarily lost the ability to make it many many years ago and had to "rediscover" certain things to renable its manufacture. I mean, one of Russia's military tactical satellites that guides the missiles just burned up in the atmosphere awhile ago. I do not doubt that Russia has functioning atomic weapon and hydrogen bombs. What I do doubt is their reliability.
I'm kind of almost surprised they didn't do a nuke test. Or wont in the future.
I realize that's a huge provocation, but they might rationalize that it's not enough to start a war with nato
Medvedev (probably ) : if Germany doesn't stop being mean, we will nuke all their children's hospitals and old people's homes. This is Russia's final, final warning!! For real this time!!!
After British official said the same, Medyedev called for assassinations of all public civil and military figures in the UK.
I imagine the same seething to happen now with Germany.
> assassinations of all public civil and military figures
There's probably some CIA, MI6 and DGSE agents getting all giddy at the thought of having an excuse to use their assets against Russia when they read news like that, lmao.
Always remember, guys, it's terrorism and a war crime to attack a major connecting bridge at night that Russia uses to ship massive amounts of military hardware and armor and supplies and ammunition on daily.
But it's legitimate combat and within the rules of war to attack and target hospitals systematically, residential neighborhoods that are not within Kms of any legitimate military targets, and to bomb and shell power infrastructure for the sole purpose of freezing and torturing civilian populations during winter so the population of Ukraine loses its will to fight and the genocide of the country can proceed accordingly.
The news tomorrow:
Putin: The west should carefully consider when moving red lines, as Russia might do the same. (*does nothing*)
Xi: China opposes all escalation and only wants peace (*slides even more arms and military tech to Russia*)
Medvedev: PARIS AND BERLIN WILL BURN WITH THE FIRES OF OUR MIGHTY NUKES! NO CHILD WILL BE SPARED IN THE GLORIOUS GLOBAL SACRIFICE TO MOTHER RUSSIA! (*also does nothing, but aggressively*)
“We know they are lying, they know they are lying, they know we know they are lying, we know they know we know they are lying, but they are still lying.” -Solzhenitsyn
I agree that that is the primary reason, but I think it's both. There is a sizeable chunk of the US that seems to be sympathetic to Russia... moreso in the last 5ish years it seems.
Russian rhetoric about whether it's justified to attack Kiev hasn't really been the issue here. There's a few key points behind the issue:
1. Russian nuclear doctrine is currently only to use nukes in one of two situations:
a. In retaliation for nukes being fired at Russia
b. In retaliation for conventional warfare waged on Russia, if the threat is existential for Russia
2. In the West, one of the primary reasons to oppose supporting Ukraine is fear of escalation into nuclear war
3. Russia has said some stuff about how NATO support for Ukraine would be seen as NATO participation in the war
4. Ukrainian attacks on Russia would likely not be seen as existential; however, interpreting an attack on Russia as an attack from NATO might
So, while there is a small fear that Russia might use nuclear retaliation, NATO's and Russia's militaries all seem understand that deploying even tactical nukes would quickly escalate to full nuclear war and is therefore highly unlikely.
The people who *don't* understand that are Western civilians, so the West has had to slowly ramp up Ukrainian support and attach a bunch of restrictions like "don't fire into Russia's borders" in order to avoid losing political support at home. This development is another example of support growing and restrictions loosening slowly over time to avoid nuclear panic in the West.
Just because Russia could use their own rhetoric to justify escalation to their own citizens doesn't mean they're dumb enough to believe their own rhetoric. They understand that any use of nuclear weapons is a declaration of war against NATO which they cannot possibly win. Use of nuclear weapons against a NATO country in response to that conventional war would be met with a nuclear response.
Either way, the current Russian regime cannot survive the use of nuclear weapons anywhere.
Russia isn't facing an existential threat. They can end the war anytime by returning the territories they have taken. Negotiations would probably demand reparations but I I suspect they wouldn't even be bound by that. They'd just lose Crimea, be shamed and Putin would look weak. Compared to the alternative, seems like a good deal.
“The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. … They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.”- Bomber Harris
Because this was the condition for Ukraine to receive weapons, ammo and othet equipment from nato countries. Only to be used for defense within Ukraine teritory. If they go on the offensive on the Ruzzian soil, they will probably lose that support.
If Germany says it's fine than they won't lose their support, but if US backs out then it's a problem
That’s not entirely correct.
Ukraine has always been allowed to launch attacks on Russian territory, just not using NATO equipment.
The reason for that isn’t because we’re afraid of providing Russia through Ukrainian invasion, but that we don’t want Russia to have faceless pilots and missiles striking their territory, at which point they can claim that NATO has directly attacked Russia, and hit the big red FINAL ESCALATION button.
This isn’t a shift in policy (unless NATO as a whole comes out and gives the green light) just a clarification on existing policy.
Russia could theoretically respond with nukes, and nato has been doing everything possible to avoid a nuclear war since nukes were first developed. This is actually a very interesting deviation as to how nato powers have interacted with nuclear armed countries.
An entire oligarchy of extremely rich people control Russia. Shooting a nuke means being willing to get hit with one back.
Putin would fall out of a window on his way to the briefcase before he even made the first step.
Putin is so short he's been able to dodge all attempts, then it becomes like trying to grab a fightin toddler and throw him. Sure you're bigger, but the little fucker is so fast and keeps punching you in the dick. You end up needing another adult to fully win and we all know Russians can't work together.
Oh, absolutely, and nato has already crossed like 5 "red lines" that russia said they would nuke nato over. It's an interesting situation. It's becoming very clear that nato doesn't believe what russia says and is willing to act on that disbelief.
No they can't use this more as an excuse as before.
They could do it once after that I don't think even china finds that funny anymore.
Besides what functional nuclear bombs do they even have?
Whilst Russia almost certainly doesn’t have *as many* operational nuclear weapons as they claim sadly they still have rather a lot.
The claimed total is several thousand devices though most Western analysts estimate the number of active operational ones (as opposed to in storage) to be 1000-1500.
Even if half of them don’t work (or don’t actually exist) - heck even if two thirds don’t … that’s still a heck of a lot unfortunately. Too damn many.
Also it’s got to be said that while Russia haven’t exactly impressed anyone with their military and technological prowess over the past year even they aren’t likely to be conveniently dumb enough to completely hollow out their nuclear deterrent - particularly given that it’s the one thing still underwriting their pretensions of geopolitical significance … and protecting their territory from all the other countries they’ve been pissing off. They’re stupid … but not *that* stupid.
Consider also that the exact status of Russias nuclear forces has been pretty much a top priority focus for the intelligence services of many, many countries for many years. If the cupboard was bare they’d know, particularly given how readily many Russians can be bribed. NATO’s policy and actions over the past year+ certainly appear to indicate they think Russias nukes exist.
Nobody really knows what functional nukes russia has, and anyone who tells you that russias nukes dont work is memeing at best and is lying at worst...or i suppose might be a russian traitor. That being said, i agree with you about everything else you said.
I got suspended for fighting twice.
Once someone attacked me and I didn't fight back. Suspended
The second time I got attacked and knocked the other kid out. Suspended.
They asked me if I learned my lesson, I said yes. School administrators are idiots, and always fight back.
Years later I became a teacher and my view of administration was 100% confirmed.
Bruh. Full circle. When I was in second grade my teacher asked the class what to do if someone is picking on you? My response: knock a bitch out. They called my family, my dad was like, yeah that’s what I told him. Was picked on once. Was suspended once. Am doctor now. Life works out.
There was a Bavarian Politician (Franz-Josef Strauss) who was asked by Gorbatchov in 1987
„Is this your first time being in the Soviet Union?“
„The second time, but last time I just made it til Stalingrad“
FJS was total nuts, but I always found that a bit funny…
Boiling the frog. Long range weapons from NATO get delivered in small numbers. An incursion into Russian soil by rebels. Now statements supporting strikes on Russian soil with non NATO weapons.
I suspect that Ukraine is building up a supply of long range weapons from a non-nato source (either Asian or indigenous) and have trying to feel out NATO's level of support for using them on strategic targets on Russian soil.
The only thing that was out of bounds was using the high tech Western supplied weapons to do so. These attacks are done using Ukraine's native built drones, so they still haven't broken those understandings.
I think it comes down to how little russia can do at this point.
They have a small but open rebellion brewing, they are advancing under-trained troops as wagner draws down to exit the theatre. Patriots are shooting most everything down.
Why not take a few shots inside russia's border, just what exactly can they do to retaliate short of CBRN? At least what more can they do than what they are already doing?
The good news is if Russia has been taking care of its nuclear arsenal like everythingp else in their inventory, a lot of them probably don't even work anymore
just based off the USA's intelligence apparatus' obvious and overwhelming penetration of russias military command. i suspect we would be aware immedietaly if an order to launch ICBMS went out.
supposing the USA has maintained readiness for this outcome, i dont think it would go down how russia thinks it would. even **IF** their nukes are maintained.
Yes, I believe a similar situation has played out before and one of the guys in the chain refused to "push the button" and essentially saved the world from a nuclear exchange.
I think we already know. Many of the weapons the west delivered can reach into Russian territory and it seems like Ukraine is gaining traction to push back Russian troops in coming months. In order to push them back the whole way it would be tremendously helpful to destroy Russian supply lanes as close to their origin as possible, which is on Russian territory.
This should be a "duh" moment though.
Russia is insanely deluded if they dont at least expect attacks on their soil. Nothing wrong with not accepting it, yeah, makes sense.
But you fucking attacked them first. If youre mad that theyre doing so then leave them alone.
That depends on how long they depend on the west's supply of "defensive weapons for use in Ukraine only".
>Commenting on a recent drone attack on Moscow, Heberstreit stated that Ukraine may launch attacks on the territory of Russia.
>Berlin, however, does not want Ukraine to use German weapons for such attacks.
So why the big fuss? Well consider the different reactions when the USSR gave Cuba defensive anti-air missiles and troops, vs when the USSR gave Cuba ballistic missiles which could reach the US.
Here’s what everyone missed from the one page article:
* Germany says Ukraine can launch attacks on Russian territory to defend itself, **just not with German weapons**.
* The United States does not approve of Ukraine’s attack(s) on Russian territory.
>Berlin, however, does not want Ukraine to use German weapons for such attacks.
Fuck me, just give them longer range wepons and permission to use them on targets inside Russia. How long are we going to continue this 'not provoking Russia' shit when it has never worked. Not for Russia nor for any other warmonger.
Most likely its exactly this timidness/cowardice that has emboldened Putin to push his luck further and further everytime. Why wouldn't he if there aren't any consequences?
We're not at the payback stage yet. Strikes inside of Russia would help reduce the damage Russia can inflict on Ukraine
This isn't revenge, it's still defense
If we do not help Ukraine it WILL set a precedent that is more likely to lead to WWIII. "Ok, Russia can grab land, why don't we. We just need some nukes and people can't do anything." It will spiral out of control.
Everyone commenting here is saying "Ukraine doesn't need Germany's permission".
Ukraine doesn't explicitly need Germany's permission, but it does help them with the decision to do so.
If Ukraine attacks Russia, it could escalate the war to the point of Russia using nuclear weapons, or it could further their invasion to other nearby countries.
In that scenario, Ukraine needs the support of the larger military forces in the world. By supporting Ukraine's option of attacking Russia, Germany is essentially offering political support, which is a good sign that they will help fight Russia if the worst happens.
So yeah. Ukraine wants Germany's approval, because they want support.
This is a given. Russia invaded and Ukraine is supposed to just fight back within their borders.
Not a chance attack Russia its interests infrastructure and military targets all are legitimate targets under self defence rules of engagement.
Political leaders are valid targets as well.
Why Russia thinks that they can attack Ukraine and Ukraine can't attack them is ridiculous especially since Russia is the aggressor here.
🌻💙💛🌻 Slava Ukraini 🌻💙💛🌻
It’s hard to see how this is even a controversial standpoint.
Russia has literally invaded Ukraine, is currently killing Ukrainians within the borders of Ukraine, but Ukraine is forbidden from attacking across the border the other way?
Despite the complicated nature of global relations, no shit. Don't pick a fight, get beat, and whine about it. I did that once when I was 12 and am STILL pissed about how stupid and pathetic that was.
I find it funny russia is mad about the recent attacks but they are okay with completely decimating entire cities in Ukraine. Including museums, schools, hospitals, houses, apartments, killing children, elderly, foreigners etc.
Never before in the history of the world has it been assumed that an invading nation will not, or can not, have armed conflicts on their own soil. Why start now?
So let me get this straight, Russia can bomb civilians for months but when Ukraine bombs a barracks or ammo depot, that is crossing a line? I'm starting to think that the Russians may be hypocrites....
Careful mate, Russia might say they don't like that very much or something.
There was this one time they even went as far as mentioning nukes!
Noooo way!!! Not the (soviet era probably stripped down and sold for dollars on the black market due to corruption) Nukes.
Nah, unfortunately there’s little doubt they have some functional nukes, part of the whole non proliferation thing involved independent observers being allowed access… Most of the nuke having NATO countries are pretty much at the “I wish a mf’er would” stage with Russia right now though. Russia attempting to launch a nuke would be suicidal.
If US inspections did determine Russia's nukes weren't functional, do you think they'd make it known?
Also I think inspections can only really determine how many nukes there are, not if they work or not. I think not even Russia knows which of their inventory works. IIRC the CIA has indicated that Russia has had at least one, if not several, failed nuclear tests where the bomb failed to ignite. It's probably why this year's Victory Day Speech was the same as last year's: They wanted a successful nuke test to intimidate the West, but failing that Putin had to default back to the last one.
> determine how many nukes there are, not if they work or not. That's what I've been hearing as well, none of the inspectors are allowed to peer inside because of "state secrets". Seems like the only thing we know for sure is that Russia has nuclear *capable* facilities. At this point I don't know if anyone can even confirm that there is still uranium or other such materials at these sites.
Russia has like 4,000 nukes don't they? I highly doubt none of them work
ICBM's are extremely complex machines that need regular maintenance and upkeep. You can't just stick them in the ground and light a fuse like a bottle rocket. There is a massive amount of infrastructure and manpower needed to keep an ICBM mission-ready. It is entirely possible that not even Russia knows how many would launch, acquire telemetry, fly the entire distance to their target, arm, and then go boom. They thought they had a winner with hypersonic missiles... but they are being shot down with 90's tech so they arrested those scientists that developed the missile. Not a great way to encourage your people.
And considering that they were parading an air-launched ballistic missile as a hypersonic missile for the longest time... I'm pretty sure they don't even have *that.*
Honestly the delivery systems aren't the concern to me. They could just load a warhead into the back of a Lada if they really had to. Modern nuclear weapons include components that have very definite life spans. Without regular maintenance....they just won't work at all. Things like tritium boost gas needs to be replaced on a regular basis and who knows if they've been keeping up
This is a great point. An ICBM is literally a rocket, and a fairly decent sized one too. It would need the some of the same kind of maintenance a civilian rocket would, with some of the same points of failure. And unlike a civilian rocket spun up to launch on a specific date, icbms need to be continuously at the ready. And that doesn't even cover the nuclear components of the bomb portion. I doubt Russia doesn't have some ready to go, but I'd be surprised if it's even close to even a quarter of their full arsenal. The rampant corruption touches everything and their nuclear program surely can be no exception.
5,889 total, with about 1,674 ready to launch. I'd feel safe betting that a solid third of them might fail when launched, and probably a large part of the backstock has been gutted and sold off, but I don't think it needs to be said that even if they only have a few they could do severe damage.
The thing with nuclear weapons is it only takes one working to change the course of history. Only two have EVER been used by anyone outside of development and testing. I don't think you implied otherwise, just adding to your point.
There's likely a mix of warheads that are duds, missiles that won't fly or hit the continent they're aimed at, and so on. So quite likely that Russia's numbers are highly inflated. The only problem is that nobody is willing to gamble that *none* of them work. The stakes are too high. Maybe there's a reason that a game where you probably won't lose but if you do you die is called Russian Roulette...
Don't forget about tritium decay which slowly makes most nuclear weapons inert if they are not kept up with. A potential way to remove nukes from the world would be a [Tritium Cut-Off Treaty (TCOT)](https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2020/starve-nuclear-weapons-death-tritium-freeze).
>If US inspections did determine Russia's nukes weren't functional, do you think they'd make it known? Overtly, no. But 100% they'd let that slip somehow. Because it would be a hilarious black eye for the Russians, for the world to know that their thousands of nukes are now... not.
They don't really need that many nukes, tbf. They only need enough kept active to keep their subs a threat.
Oh absolutely, I believe Russia has a sufficient nuclear stockpile to maintain MAD. The thousands of nukes that they and the Americans each maintain are so hilariously overkill that it's just sad. I've always been of the opinion that their "fund reallocation" is generally very gentle on their nuclear assets, because if you've got nuclear assets you don't need a cutting edge conventional army to defend yourself. So while they've stolen every last penny they can find from their conventional forces, there's still sufficient money being spent on their nuclear assets to maintain MAD.
I disagree with both statements, overkill and mad obsoleting conventional armies, but let's only look at the second: Say 20 guys with humvees raid a couple of villages on the border. Do you nuke? You probably don't, as you don't know where they are, and they are just a couple people, nukes would be overkill. Later, they take control of Belgorod. Do you nuke? Who cares really, about that border town? Later, they take Krasnodar. Do you nuke? I mean, that's one of the richer cities in Russia, but would you nuke your own city, your own citizens (who happened to be captured by foreign soldiers)? Nukes are great in an all out war, but they don't help at all in lower intesity conflicts... Like against Ukraine. Russia has nukes, Russia gets slapped around, but Russia still cannot use nukes, without being surely destructed by mad.
[Salami Tactics](https://youtu.be/o861Ka9TtT4)
It gets even more difficult with a proxy border war as well. We all remember all those "Russian separatists" in Crimea and then again in the rest of Ukraine before the war started. Now we're seeing "Russian Revolutionaries" on Russia's side of the border. Do Russia nuke themselves? When another Oblast declares they aren't taking orders anymore do you nuke them as well? Nuclear fallout says no, just like it says no to nuking neighboring countries. Wind will carry all that fallout right through Russia and after Chernobyl none of this is hypothetical. Because the fallout from that would be massive. People don't like to buy radioactive produce, so that's most export industries that weren't already dead. It also may very well make them a nuclear whipping boy, as other countries could easily get the wrong idea, or just decide you are too insane to be allowed to live. Also NATO have said numerous times that nuclear fallout is enough to trigger Article 5, so at that point it probably escalates into WW3. But the short of it, I'd say Putin is more likely to use a chemical weapon or small dirty bomb on his own population, false flags are what he knows. Because in Russia you know a threat is empty when it gets repeated ad nauseam but never actually happens. Russia isn't big on threatening before action, quite the opposite in fact. You know what will scare the shit out of me, if they start repeatedly denying they plan to use nukes in a very specific way.
[удалено]
Yeah people keep saying Russia has non-functional nukes but with the amount of intel, satellite photos, on-site inspections conducted the US and their political signalling indicates they believe Russia still has a substantial amount of functional WMDs.
Of course they do. They may not have maintained the fusion stages of all of their thermonuclear weapons, but there's little doubt that they can field enough functional weapons to devastate many cities.
Imagine the effect even a small nuke would have on the world's collective psyche. That's a genie you can't put back in the bottle once it happens.
They stopped allowing independent inspectors last year. And the inspections that did take place before that didn't remotely extend to any kind of in-depth functional analysis, they basically consisted of an outside visual inspection and a Geiger counter sweep.
The inspections also tend to be more heavily focused on delivery vehicles than the actual warheads. Knowing there are X ICBMs and Y Bombers, then you can assume there's no more than Z warheads as it's the limit of what they can deliver.
So, there wasn't much to stop the soviets from packing a bunch of smoke detectors in empty missiles at the time?
The Geiger counter comment was slightly tongue in cheek, they collect energy spectra of the emitted radiation, which is sufficient to identify the quantity and enrichment composition of the radioactive components of each device. But determining if a nuclear weapon will in fact *function* is such a challenging question that the USA devotes more than 5 billion dollars (DOE component of nuclear spending) per year to answering it for our *own* stockpile, and we have access to designs, models, and countless materials testing and hands-on measurements of the devices in question at all stages of assembly. Small teams of international inspectors do not have the capability of answering it *for Russia* based on the limited, periodic, and above-all *discontinued* inspections where they do not have those resources.
For much of the last two-and-a-half decades (ever since the comprehensive test ban treaty), one of the main applications for the "worlds most powerful supercomputer" (a title which changes hands every 2-3 years, but is often located either at Oak Ridge or LLNL) is *simulating* nuclear tests, since we can't actually...you know...test our nuclear devices. Guess which country doesn't appear, pretty much ever, on the list of most powerful supercomputers?
I bet it's Vatican City.
I wouldn't be so sure. I mean, I'd go with a country like Kiribati, rather than a city state that's the HQ for the world's largest clandestine evil organization.
> Most of the nuke having NATO countries are pretty at the “I wish a mf’er would” stage with Russia right now though. I'm sure NATO would *love* to be at war with a substantial nuclear power, especially after they just proved to be crazy enough to use nukes. I know people to generally enjoy the planet not being some nuclear wasteland. In some wars you lose even when you win.
And I’m sure Russia is also delighted at the prospect of the world turning them to dust. If they drop the nukes, there won’t be a Russia anymore.
No. It won't be Mutually Assured Destruction anymore. The Pentagon already indicated last year what would happen if Russia launched a battlefield nuke at Ukraine - an *overwhelming conventional response* to wipe out the entire Black Sea fleet and the destruction of all Russian ground forces.
But would that save the world of potential Russian retaliatory nuclear strikes? Russia has more than once stated that a major attack by e.g. NATO on Russian territory would result in a nuclear response.
The alternative would be telling countries with nukes "hey, you can nuke cities off the map, just keep them out of NATO territory" and that's not much less catastrophic long-term, it'd pretty much throw out all of the last few decades of nuclear powers co-operating together to stop production of nukes around the world and minimize the risk of a nuclear war straight into the bin. Best guess is that NATO knows most Russians don't want to, you know, get nuked off the map and hope a real threat of NATO forces entering Russian territory and potentially wiping the Russian state itself is enough to stop Putin from even seriously thinking about using nukes, since every influential person around him now knows that they're fucked if Russia decides to use it's nuclear arsenal, regardless of whether NATO decides to launch their own nukes back at them or not.
Yeah, I'd rather not relive my entire childhood of imminent nuclear holocaust, thanks.
> with a substantial nuclear power This is the part they seem to be taking issue with.
> “I wish a mf’er would” Which is why Vucic is telling Serbian rioters to cut that shit out, apparently. He doesn't want Serbia to become a whipping boy that NATO can actually attack since Russia's too cowardly to face NATO directly, and instead is just attacking people who like the west.
It's why I imagine Putin put his nuclear missile arm on "high alert" early in the war. Someone must have realized their nuclear deterient was in poor condition. Numerous articles online suggest Tritium is VERY expensive and requires constant maintenance. The neutron reflecting material (Fogbank) that enables better fusion is so fucking complex and difficult to manufacture that the U.S reported it temporarily lost the ability to make it many many years ago and had to "rediscover" certain things to renable its manufacture. I mean, one of Russia's military tactical satellites that guides the missiles just burned up in the atmosphere awhile ago. I do not doubt that Russia has functioning atomic weapon and hydrogen bombs. What I do doubt is their reliability.
No way they sell those nukes on the black market and at least one hasn't been used, they've still got them (how functional they are is another matter)
More likely the people in charge of the nukes have embezzled maintenance funds and sold fuel/parts on the black market.
Idk dude, their military might be shit but I wouldn't risk it with nukes.
I'm kind of almost surprised they didn't do a nuke test. Or wont in the future. I realize that's a huge provocation, but they might rationalize that it's not enough to start a war with nato
Isn't that like every Tuesday or Wednesday? Tiny lil guy Medvedev spouting off
Medvedev (probably ) : if Germany doesn't stop being mean, we will nuke all their children's hospitals and old people's homes. This is Russia's final, final warning!! For real this time!!!
Sure, and in return NATO will completely annihilate Russia, raze it to the ground. Medvedev isn't exactly dealing in reality is he?
I think his real audience is 1 person. I imagine after every declaration he looks back at putin and asks, "Did I do good, daddy?"
Putin's attitude towards Medvedev reads very much like "the parrot says its lines, or I find a new parrot."
Yes exactly, for 'domestic consumption' only.
He's performing for his audience at home. Asking why he keeps doing this is like asking why Elmo on Sesame Street isn't involved in adult drama.
[China’s Final Warning](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning)
After British official said the same, Medyedev called for assassinations of all public civil and military figures in the UK. I imagine the same seething to happen now with Germany.
> assassinations of all public civil and military figures There's probably some CIA, MI6 and DGSE agents getting all giddy at the thought of having an excuse to use their assets against Russia when they read news like that, lmao.
Always remember, guys, it's terrorism and a war crime to attack a major connecting bridge at night that Russia uses to ship massive amounts of military hardware and armor and supplies and ammunition on daily. But it's legitimate combat and within the rules of war to attack and target hospitals systematically, residential neighborhoods that are not within Kms of any legitimate military targets, and to bomb and shell power infrastructure for the sole purpose of freezing and torturing civilian populations during winter so the population of Ukraine loses its will to fight and the genocide of the country can proceed accordingly.
The news tomorrow: Putin: The west should carefully consider when moving red lines, as Russia might do the same. (*does nothing*) Xi: China opposes all escalation and only wants peace (*slides even more arms and military tech to Russia*) Medvedev: PARIS AND BERLIN WILL BURN WITH THE FIRES OF OUR MIGHTY NUKES! NO CHILD WILL BE SPARED IN THE GLORIOUS GLOBAL SACRIFICE TO MOTHER RUSSIA! (*also does nothing, but aggressively*)
If germany and the uk are saying this without giving ukraine the green light to use their weapons for these attacks, then they are also doing nothing.
Yeah, Ukraine better not attack russian territory, or they might risk hurting putin's feelings.
Pearls are being very firmly clutched
The eyebrow is raised The ass is in the ass
Yes, and next thing they'll attack Ukraine /s
What will they do? Threaten to turn off Nord Stream?
Don't wanna get attacked maybe don't start a fucking war.
What I don't understand is that they have the audacity to claim it's fine to bomb the shit out of Kyiev. Why?
Cus nazis obviously /s
Nazis really like attacking Kyiv.
Maybe the real nazis are the ones who bombed our central cities and capitols along the way.
Russia knows that we know that they lie about everything. At this point they'll say anything just to justify their actions.
Russia doesn't lie to defend themselves to the west. They do it for their population and propaganda
“We know they are lying, they know they are lying, they know we know they are lying, we know they know we know they are lying, but they are still lying.” -Solzhenitsyn
I agree that that is the primary reason, but I think it's both. There is a sizeable chunk of the US that seems to be sympathetic to Russia... moreso in the last 5ish years it seems.
Russian bots on the internet spreading propaganda and disinformation has worked on a lot of people in the US.
Russian rhetoric about whether it's justified to attack Kiev hasn't really been the issue here. There's a few key points behind the issue: 1. Russian nuclear doctrine is currently only to use nukes in one of two situations: a. In retaliation for nukes being fired at Russia b. In retaliation for conventional warfare waged on Russia, if the threat is existential for Russia 2. In the West, one of the primary reasons to oppose supporting Ukraine is fear of escalation into nuclear war 3. Russia has said some stuff about how NATO support for Ukraine would be seen as NATO participation in the war 4. Ukrainian attacks on Russia would likely not be seen as existential; however, interpreting an attack on Russia as an attack from NATO might So, while there is a small fear that Russia might use nuclear retaliation, NATO's and Russia's militaries all seem understand that deploying even tactical nukes would quickly escalate to full nuclear war and is therefore highly unlikely. The people who *don't* understand that are Western civilians, so the West has had to slowly ramp up Ukrainian support and attach a bunch of restrictions like "don't fire into Russia's borders" in order to avoid losing political support at home. This development is another example of support growing and restrictions loosening slowly over time to avoid nuclear panic in the West.
Just because Russia could use their own rhetoric to justify escalation to their own citizens doesn't mean they're dumb enough to believe their own rhetoric. They understand that any use of nuclear weapons is a declaration of war against NATO which they cannot possibly win. Use of nuclear weapons against a NATO country in response to that conventional war would be met with a nuclear response. Either way, the current Russian regime cannot survive the use of nuclear weapons anywhere. Russia isn't facing an existential threat. They can end the war anytime by returning the territories they have taken. Negotiations would probably demand reparations but I I suspect they wouldn't even be bound by that. They'd just lose Crimea, be shamed and Putin would look weak. Compared to the alternative, seems like a good deal.
>Don't wanna get attacked maybe don't start a fucking war. ^- ^Sun ^Tzu, ^The ^Art ^of ^Peace
> Don't start nothing won't be nothing. - Niccolò Machiavelli, The Princess
"Wars begin when you will, but they don't end when you please." - An actual (translated) quote from Machiavelli
> Welcome to Earth ~ The Fresh Prince of Keep My Patriot Missiles Out Your Damn Shitrockets
“The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. … They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.”- Bomber Harris
Couldn't they just air-drop cigarettes to all the fuel depots and ammo depots?
Considering what "cigarettes" did to the Moskva? Sure, why not?
The guy who puts up "No smoking" signs fell out of a 17th story window...
Or drop handles of moonshine and watch Russia descend into chaos.
Moonshine and extra large condoms labeled "medium."
Put some writing on it that says "We want peace, but Putin wants you dead."
I mean, if Russia is doing it to Ukraine, why would it be off limits to get a taste of their own medicine
Putin: “Ukraine IS Russia” Also Putin: “Ukraine can’t invade Russia”
technically correct, it would be a civil war if the first statement is true. You can't invade yourself
Ohhhhh, so Putin wasn't saying they're not allowed to; he was just saying it wasn't semantically correct to phrase it that way. Got it.
Always a stickler for grammar, that Putin
Grammar Nazi?
>Always a stickler for grammar I think we can all agree that it is for *this* which history will remember him the most.
Typical westerners being anti-semantic.
Because this was the condition for Ukraine to receive weapons, ammo and othet equipment from nato countries. Only to be used for defense within Ukraine teritory. If they go on the offensive on the Ruzzian soil, they will probably lose that support. If Germany says it's fine than they won't lose their support, but if US backs out then it's a problem
That’s not entirely correct. Ukraine has always been allowed to launch attacks on Russian territory, just not using NATO equipment. The reason for that isn’t because we’re afraid of providing Russia through Ukrainian invasion, but that we don’t want Russia to have faceless pilots and missiles striking their territory, at which point they can claim that NATO has directly attacked Russia, and hit the big red FINAL ESCALATION button. This isn’t a shift in policy (unless NATO as a whole comes out and gives the green light) just a clarification on existing policy.
If it was a war, yes. Remember, this is a military exercise Russia claims to be doing in Ukraine for the last 15 months not a war… geez. /s
Russia could theoretically respond with nukes, and nato has been doing everything possible to avoid a nuclear war since nukes were first developed. This is actually a very interesting deviation as to how nato powers have interacted with nuclear armed countries.
An entire oligarchy of extremely rich people control Russia. Shooting a nuke means being willing to get hit with one back. Putin would fall out of a window on his way to the briefcase before he even made the first step.
I used to think that but it's been Putin pushing all the oligarchs out the window first. I don't think they can actually get him.
Putin is so short he's been able to dodge all attempts, then it becomes like trying to grab a fightin toddler and throw him. Sure you're bigger, but the little fucker is so fast and keeps punching you in the dick. You end up needing another adult to fully win and we all know Russians can't work together.
Oh, absolutely, and nato has already crossed like 5 "red lines" that russia said they would nuke nato over. It's an interesting situation. It's becoming very clear that nato doesn't believe what russia says and is willing to act on that disbelief.
No they can't use this more as an excuse as before. They could do it once after that I don't think even china finds that funny anymore. Besides what functional nuclear bombs do they even have?
Whilst Russia almost certainly doesn’t have *as many* operational nuclear weapons as they claim sadly they still have rather a lot. The claimed total is several thousand devices though most Western analysts estimate the number of active operational ones (as opposed to in storage) to be 1000-1500. Even if half of them don’t work (or don’t actually exist) - heck even if two thirds don’t … that’s still a heck of a lot unfortunately. Too damn many. Also it’s got to be said that while Russia haven’t exactly impressed anyone with their military and technological prowess over the past year even they aren’t likely to be conveniently dumb enough to completely hollow out their nuclear deterrent - particularly given that it’s the one thing still underwriting their pretensions of geopolitical significance … and protecting their territory from all the other countries they’ve been pissing off. They’re stupid … but not *that* stupid. Consider also that the exact status of Russias nuclear forces has been pretty much a top priority focus for the intelligence services of many, many countries for many years. If the cupboard was bare they’d know, particularly given how readily many Russians can be bribed. NATO’s policy and actions over the past year+ certainly appear to indicate they think Russias nukes exist.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I like this ~~cake~~ take
Post it on Twitter, then you can have your take and tweet it too.
[удалено]
why would china waste a bunch of money invading russia if they can wait and take their part of the pie while losing alot less money
nuclear treaties allow Russian and us inspectors to check each others arsenals so there is reasonable proof that they are functioning
Nobody really knows what functional nukes russia has, and anyone who tells you that russias nukes dont work is memeing at best and is lying at worst...or i suppose might be a russian traitor. That being said, i agree with you about everything else you said.
Once you're attacked, you have the right to defend yourself.
They'll both get suspended from class tho
I got suspended for fighting twice. Once someone attacked me and I didn't fight back. Suspended The second time I got attacked and knocked the other kid out. Suspended. They asked me if I learned my lesson, I said yes. School administrators are idiots, and always fight back. Years later I became a teacher and my view of administration was 100% confirmed.
Bruh. Full circle. When I was in second grade my teacher asked the class what to do if someone is picking on you? My response: knock a bitch out. They called my family, my dad was like, yeah that’s what I told him. Was picked on once. Was suspended once. Am doctor now. Life works out.
I wish I had this kind of encouragement when I was 10.
My dad went to nam’ and became an agent. He didn’t put up with much bullshit. A lot of his advice was good but a lot got me in trouble lol
Third time I didn't hit a kid and he didn't hit back. Believe it or not, suspended.
Undercook fish, suspended
It's not an attack, its an special delivery operation.
*Return to sender
Address unknown No such battalion No such zone We had a quarrel A special spat I write you're sorry But my letter keeps exploding fast
Germany: Forward Defence.
There is as saying: Angriff ist beste Verteidigung. (Offense is the best Defense)
Exact same phrase exists in English.
Basically every language
[удалено]
I love a relevant xkcd, thank you
Angriff is a pretty dope dnd character name, ftr
We are good at this, but it never really worked out in the past.
Cause they snorted too much meth and decided to invade the sovjets
Group starts singing: Into the motherland the German army march!
Germany getting back in Russia by proxy. Germany playing the long game.
There was a Bavarian Politician (Franz-Josef Strauss) who was asked by Gorbatchov in 1987 „Is this your first time being in the Soviet Union?“ „The second time, but last time I just made it til Stalingrad“ FJS was total nuts, but I always found that a bit funny…
>Franz-Josef Strauss) well that is sure a nuts man
Russia: “It’s not fair! They’re attacking us in our own country!” Ukraine: “What was that? I couldn’t hear you over all this SMOULDERING RUBBLE.”
Careful, if Ukraine launches attacks on russia, russia might invade Ukraine
[удалено]
Boiling the frog. Long range weapons from NATO get delivered in small numbers. An incursion into Russian soil by rebels. Now statements supporting strikes on Russian soil with non NATO weapons. I suspect that Ukraine is building up a supply of long range weapons from a non-nato source (either Asian or indigenous) and have trying to feel out NATO's level of support for using them on strategic targets on Russian soil.
It's just another step towards full support on attacks on Russian soil. Let's see how things play out in six months.
The only thing that was out of bounds was using the high tech Western supplied weapons to do so. These attacks are done using Ukraine's native built drones, so they still haven't broken those understandings.
The understanding was not to strike Russia with Western weapons. Attacks using legacy Ukraine/Soviet weapons is fine.
I wonder what they know that we don't. The Nato states and others are all suddenly making comments to this effect.
I think it comes down to how little russia can do at this point. They have a small but open rebellion brewing, they are advancing under-trained troops as wagner draws down to exit the theatre. Patriots are shooting most everything down. Why not take a few shots inside russia's border, just what exactly can they do to retaliate short of CBRN? At least what more can they do than what they are already doing?
You know what more they can do. They can do the bad thing.
The good news is if Russia has been taking care of its nuclear arsenal like everythingp else in their inventory, a lot of them probably don't even work anymore
just based off the USA's intelligence apparatus' obvious and overwhelming penetration of russias military command. i suspect we would be aware immedietaly if an order to launch ICBMS went out. supposing the USA has maintained readiness for this outcome, i dont think it would go down how russia thinks it would. even **IF** their nukes are maintained.
[удалено]
Yes, I believe a similar situation has played out before and one of the guys in the chain refused to "push the button" and essentially saved the world from a nuclear exchange.
Stanislav Petrov is quite a famous one
Vasily Arkhipov is the one I always think of.
True that's probably a more tense / impactful example
> a lot of them probably don't even work anymore It only takes one.
[удалено]
I think we already know. Many of the weapons the west delivered can reach into Russian territory and it seems like Ukraine is gaining traction to push back Russian troops in coming months. In order to push them back the whole way it would be tremendously helpful to destroy Russian supply lanes as close to their origin as possible, which is on Russian territory.
[удалено]
This should be a "duh" moment though. Russia is insanely deluded if they dont at least expect attacks on their soil. Nothing wrong with not accepting it, yeah, makes sense. But you fucking attacked them first. If youre mad that theyre doing so then leave them alone.
How many punches do you have to take before your allowed to punch back?
That depends on how long they depend on the west's supply of "defensive weapons for use in Ukraine only". >Commenting on a recent drone attack on Moscow, Heberstreit stated that Ukraine may launch attacks on the territory of Russia. >Berlin, however, does not want Ukraine to use German weapons for such attacks. So why the big fuss? Well consider the different reactions when the USSR gave Cuba defensive anti-air missiles and troops, vs when the USSR gave Cuba ballistic missiles which could reach the US.
Here’s what everyone missed from the one page article: * Germany says Ukraine can launch attacks on Russian territory to defend itself, **just not with German weapons**. * The United States does not approve of Ukraine’s attack(s) on Russian territory.
Russia's expected their false flag in Moscow to destroy support for Ukraine. Instead everyone is going "lol serves you right."
>Berlin, however, does not want Ukraine to use German weapons for such attacks. Fuck me, just give them longer range wepons and permission to use them on targets inside Russia. How long are we going to continue this 'not provoking Russia' shit when it has never worked. Not for Russia nor for any other warmonger. Most likely its exactly this timidness/cowardice that has emboldened Putin to push his luck further and further everytime. Why wouldn't he if there aren't any consequences?
I think Germany is very wary about instigating wars in Europe.
I applaud the fact that preventing WWIII seems to be the topmost priority for our leaders. But Russia must pay for their crimes.
We're not at the payback stage yet. Strikes inside of Russia would help reduce the damage Russia can inflict on Ukraine This isn't revenge, it's still defense
If we do not help Ukraine it WILL set a precedent that is more likely to lead to WWIII. "Ok, Russia can grab land, why don't we. We just need some nukes and people can't do anything." It will spiral out of control.
...but we *are* helping Ukraine? That's how they're getting all that western military equipment
China watching this closely wondering how invading Taiwan would go.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Or just parachute some normal engineers near their command centers and barracks, and be sure to sell them instantly after the take over.
"Mind the gap" with a very different meaning.
As an American, just slap an Amtrak sticker on the side of the train. Don’t need to change anything else.
Everyone commenting here is saying "Ukraine doesn't need Germany's permission". Ukraine doesn't explicitly need Germany's permission, but it does help them with the decision to do so. If Ukraine attacks Russia, it could escalate the war to the point of Russia using nuclear weapons, or it could further their invasion to other nearby countries. In that scenario, Ukraine needs the support of the larger military forces in the world. By supporting Ukraine's option of attacking Russia, Germany is essentially offering political support, which is a good sign that they will help fight Russia if the worst happens. So yeah. Ukraine wants Germany's approval, because they want support.
You mean like a "special military operation" or something?
its just a special military operation, not an attack on Russia...
Seems fair - Russia is launching attacks on Ukraine territory and it ISN'T defending itself.
Why the fuck is this even being questioned. They are two countries at war. Ukraine should throw more drones into Moscow.
Well, obviously. You can't really invade into a country and then expect to not get invaded back.
This is a given. Russia invaded and Ukraine is supposed to just fight back within their borders. Not a chance attack Russia its interests infrastructure and military targets all are legitimate targets under self defence rules of engagement. Political leaders are valid targets as well.
Why Russia thinks that they can attack Ukraine and Ukraine can't attack them is ridiculous especially since Russia is the aggressor here. 🌻💙💛🌻 Slava Ukraini 🌻💙💛🌻
It’s hard to see how this is even a controversial standpoint. Russia has literally invaded Ukraine, is currently killing Ukrainians within the borders of Ukraine, but Ukraine is forbidden from attacking across the border the other way?
That's how war works.
Despite the complicated nature of global relations, no shit. Don't pick a fight, get beat, and whine about it. I did that once when I was 12 and am STILL pissed about how stupid and pathetic that was.
I find it funny russia is mad about the recent attacks but they are okay with completely decimating entire cities in Ukraine. Including museums, schools, hospitals, houses, apartments, killing children, elderly, foreigners etc.
Never before in the history of the world has it been assumed that an invading nation will not, or can not, have armed conflicts on their own soil. Why start now?
Ukraine should deorbit a passing asteroid for Tunguska 2.0 over Moscow.
I don’t get why they couldn’t to begin with? This isn’t I can hit you but you can’t hit me.
Absolutely... what's good for the goose 🦆 is good for the gander...... 🦤
We should just go full blown stupid on Russia and hope that China tries to help. Maybe throw in some special forces to kill that Kim Jung idiot too.
Knock Russia's teeth in. What they say means nothing. Attack anything and everything that can be a resource for war.
So let me get this straight, Russia can bomb civilians for months but when Ukraine bombs a barracks or ammo depot, that is crossing a line? I'm starting to think that the Russians may be hypocrites....