Russia’s new nuclear doctrine is sabre rattling - they know Ukraine is never any threat to Russian sovereignty - Biden tweets Ukraine will win this war after seeing Zelensky's victory plan
Putin’s small change in his nuclear doctrine is just sabre rattling. Putin is just trying to put a spoke in the wheel of supplies of weapons to Ukraine and has zero interest in attacking NATO.
The new doctrine is about a nuclear state using a proxy to try to overthrow the Russian Federation with a massive drone attack.
Obviously this is never going to happen in the Ukraine war. The new doctrine very clearly doesn’t apply to the Ukraine war just like the old one.
Putin knows to attack NATO would be madness, and is not looking for a reason to do this. As usual the ONLY purpose of the numerous arbitrary red lines is to try to handicap Ukraine from defending itself against Russia.
[This is mid edit]
So, as expected, when Ukraine fired 125 drones at Russia over the weekend, Putin's spokesman Peskov clarified that the doctrine doesn’t apply. He couldn’t say anything else.
.
Text on graphic: After drone attack with 125 drones by Ukraine.
Anton Geraschchenko:
Putin’s spokesman Peskov explained that massive drone attacks on Russia are not grounds to use Russia’s new nuclear doctrine.
Duly noted.[Paraphrase: Putin's press secretary Peskov says Russia's new nuclear doctrine does NOT apply to massive drone attacks by Ukraine]
Peskov (Putin's press secretary): “Frankly speaking,there is no need to appeal too much to this document”
————-
Annotations:
Ukraine’s strikes are defensive - war ends when Russi leaves.Putin’s aims with his bluffs are simple: to put a spoke in Ukraine’s wheels - NOT to attack NATO.
No way Putin ever uses nukes or attacks NATO. Just sabre rattling.
Document is yet another bluff: - no way that Ukraine defending itself EVER threatens Russia itself.
So the very situation described in the doctrine occurred immediately after the change - except that obviously there was no threat to Russia itself and never will be from the Ukraine war.
And all Russia does is say that the doctrine doesn't apply.
In context:
Q. Last weeklend, 125 drones were shot down over Russia. This attack is called one of the largest. Moreover, it took place after president Putin announced new nuclear doctrine principles.
And the second question: after the President signs the document, will such cases already be considered grounds for the use of nuclear weapons?
Thank you.
A. Frankly speaking, there is no need to appeal too much to this document. It is an extremely important document. Important decisions have been taken. They will be formalized accordingly.
But the special military operation continues as usual. There is no need to look for some kind of link here every time.
Actually if you read the new Russian doctrine carefully it only applies to “a critical threat to our sovereignty." This doesn't apply to Ukraine because it is no threat to Russia's sovereignty. It doesn't apply even to the Kursk incursion because that was purely defensive, to protect Sumy from an incursion the other way around from Kursk oblast.
There is no way that Russia could ever see Ukraine as a critical threat to Russian sovereignty over their own country. Their war is purely defensive and Putin can end the war by simply withdrawing his army from Ukraine and he knows this very well and there is no threat to the sovereignty of Russia from a withdrawal from Ukraine.
It is more sabre rattling. It looks like a change but doesn't actually change the status of Ukraine. The revision of the nuclear doctrine was very minor. I need to do a blog post about it.
He just said that the part of the doctrine about deterring an attempt at overthrow of the Russian Federation applies also to a nuclear power if it uses another country as a proxy to try to overthrow the Russian Federation.
This was clearly meant as a way to try to prevent Biden from authorizing Ukraine to use ATACMS.
But Ukraine is only using them for defence and not to try to overthrow Putin and the US is only supporting Ukraine to defend itself so it obviously doesn't apply
Here is the translation just copied from the onscreen translation into English - not auto translate, the translation provided by the Times of India, only place I could find it so far: It's not the best of sources but I assume the translation into English is accurate. If anyone knows a better source for a translation do say.
He says it is "if the enemy, using conventional weapons, creates a critical threat to our sovereignty."
Basically, if the US wanted to overthrow Russia and gave Ukraine weapons with that purpose and there was a massive attack on Moscow that was clearly intended to overthrow the Russian government he'd use nukes.
The nukes wouldn't help Putin's situation in any way if that happened it is just a deterrent to make sure nobody ever does this. As always they are a deterrent never to be used, a nuclear war can't be won and should never be fought.
And Ukraine is not trying to overthrow Putin's regime or take over the Russian Federation - even if they wanted to that's way way beyond them, all they have done is to set up a small buffer region along the border with Kursk oblast. It is purely defensive and Putin knows that.
TRANSLATION STARTS
It is proposed to introduce a number of clarifications in terms of defining the conditions for the use of nuclear weapons.
Thus, the draft of the fundamentals (Fundamentals of State Policy in the Field of Nucler Deterrence) expands the category of states and military alliances in relation to which nuclear deterrence is carried out, adding to the list of military threats for the neutralisation of which nuclear deterrence measures are carried out.
The revised version of the document proposes to consider the aggression against Russia by any non nuclear state but with the participation or support of a nuclear state proposed as their joint attack on the Russian Federation.
The conditions for Russia's transition to the use of nuclear weapons are also clearly stated.
We will consider this possibility on receiving reliable information about a massive launch of air and space attack weapons and their crossing of our state border. I mean strategic and tactical aircraft, cruise missiles, drones, hypersonic and other aircraft.
We reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against Russia and Belarus as a member of the Union state. All these issues have been agreed upon with the Belarusian side, with the President of Belarus. Including, if the enemy, using conventional weapons, creates a critical threat to our sovereignty.
. YouTube
The main change there is
Change to include an attack from a proxy supported by a nuclear power
Change of wording to a “critical threat to our sovereignty” from "the very existence of the state".
Change to include Belarus.
However there is no way that Ukraine exercising its right to self defence under international law is any kind of a threat to the sovereignty of Russia.
The NATO Secretary General explained how Putin’s objective is to threaten Ukraine’s allies away from supporting Ukraine, and that he has done this every time they have helped Ukraine in a new way - clearly just to try to stop them from helping Ukraine.
He sees no difference in the kind of language from numerous previous occasions.
When we started to deliver more long-range weapons, that was unacceptable. Then advanced battle tanks were unacceptable. F-16s was absolutely unacceptable. And for instance, ATACMS or the Storm Shadow cruise missiles from the United Kingdom. All of these weapons are advanced weapons, and some Allies have no restrictions on the use of these weapons against legitimate military targets on the territory of Russia.
He goes on to explain that many nations removed the restrictions to use missiles against targets in Russia when Russia attacked across the border in Kharkiv oblast - because when the border is the front line there is only one way to hit targets behind the Russian front lines and that is to hit targets in Russia. So Russia itself pretty much forced Ukraine’s allies to lift that restriction by attacking across the border from Russia into Ukraine.
He then explains that he understands the distinction between hitting 80 km into Russian territory and 300 km into Russian territory (what he means by the difference between deeper and very much deep).
But he says Ukraine has crossed these lines many times already because they can’t accept a situation where Russia can use threats to prevent NATO from supporting Ukraine.
He explains that the entire war was a choice by Moscow. Ukraine was never a threat to Russia. It was Putin’s decision to invade and a blatant violation of international law.
Let me then add two more things. We need to remember what this is. This is a war aggression, a war by choice by Moscow.
No one forced them to attack Ukraine. Ukraine was never a threat to Russia. President Putin decided to launch a full-scale invasion by choice. It was his decision to do so. That is a blatant violation of international law to invade another country.
Every nation has the right to defend itself and the right for self-defence includes the right to hit legitimate military targets on the territory of the aggressor. So Ukraine’s strikes are self-defence.
… according to international law, every nation has the right to defend itself. That's part of international law. It's enshrined in the UN Charter. The right for self-defence includes the right to hit legitimate military targets on the territory of the aggressor; Russia. So it's self-defence when Ukraine strikes military targets on Russian territory. And that's according to international law.
. Conversation with the NATO Secretary General at the Council on Foreign Relations
He says if we just obey what Putin tells us to do when he bluffs, if we accept that a nuclear power can prevent Ukraine’s allies from upholding international law - that it is a very dangerous situation - because it means Russia can define what European countries can and can’t do by way of defending themselves against Putin.
NATO is there to prevent wars - and the biggest risk is if Putin wins by telling NATO countries what to do.
That's the first message, the second message is that, of course, wars are dangerous. That's the reason why NATO is there, to prevent wars. And that's the reason why we are very concerned about the war in Ukraine. And there are no risk-free options in the war.
So I'm not saying that in what we do there are no risks, but I'm saying that the biggest risk is if President Putin wins. Because then, again, he will be in a position that next time he can just coerce us again. And if I'm Latvia or Lithuania or Norway, I'm from Norway, we are a neighbour of Russia.
. Conversation with the NATO Secretary General at the Council on Foreign Relations
He gave an old example going back to 1949 when Stalin called it a provocation when Norway joined NATO in 1949. The US and UK stood their ground and said it’s the right of Norway to join and the Soviet Union allowed Norway into NATO.
So it is like that, standing up for the rights of small countries, if they wish, to seek the help of neighbours that are bigger and stronger with shared values.
For the complete conversation see:
. Conversation with the NATO Secretary General at the Council on Foreign Relations
There is no way that Russia attacks NATO it's never been a possibility. Putin is very risk averse, he only invaded Ukraine because he thought he had a risk free way to take the whole country in 2 weeks (risk free for him personally and things he cares about)
And Ukraine
1. already has permission to fire US missiles from Kursk oblast 80 km deeper into Russia - the GLMRS with the same launch system as ATACMS and
2. already has permission to use ATACMS at their maximum export range of 300 km from occupied Ukraine to Crimea where it destroys Russian fighter jets, warships, radar systems,command centres and helicopters and fuel dumps and munitions dumps.
3. Ukraine now has the capability by itself to do similar strikes with a jet powered cruise missile similar to stormshadow and a ballistic missile similar to ATACMS both with a range of much more than 300 km, over 500 km and has already used them both.
4. So if Ukraine doesn't get this permission it can do it itself, indeed is already doing it, the main difference is that with ATACMS it can do many more strikes right away before Russia adapts to this new capability. If it doens't get this permission then Russia has more chances to adapt and it will have somewhat less effect.
5. But once Ukraine does have this capability, either now or maybe 3 to 6 months from now once it can produce enough of its own weapons - it will be really hard for Russia.
6 at that point, Russia won't be able to have big fuel depots or operational airports or command posts to command operations within 500 km of the front line.
7. Ukraine ALREADY uses its OWN missiles with a range of over 1000 km to destroy fighter jets on the ground as far away as above the Arctic circle.
8. Ukraine has already destroyed 3 months of shells supply to the front line and numerous missiles in 3 huge Russian missile depots at over 400 km from the front line well outside the range of ATACMS.
9. Ukraine already has destroyed fuel dumps with tens of thousands of tons of fuel for the war at huge distances over 1000 km FAR BEYOND ATACMS RANGE
10. Ukraine has already damaged and destroyed numerous other fuel dumps and oil refineries in Russia including the oil refinery in Moscow itself, Moscow is way beyond ATACMS range.
11. Ukraine frequently uses its OWN missiles to hit defensive military targets around Moscow such as the air fields - often leading to Moscow having to stop flights over the city until the attacks are over. Again this is purely defensive and it has no interest in threatening the sovereignty of Moscow - it doesn’t target Putin or the government.
12. Putin is the invader here, the invasion is illegal, Ukraine is the one who is exercising its legitimate right for self defence, Putin just has to order his army to leave Ukraien and the war is over.
With this background, as someone who follows the war closely I don't see what the fuss is about for ATACMS.
There is no news yet to say that Biden has made a decision to give permission to Ukraine to use the 300 km range ATACMS in Russia, but it will make absolutely no difference if he does.
Indeed Putin will attack Ukraine more fiercely without this permission - as that is the whole point in it to reduce the missile attacks on Ukraine from Russia.
Biden could have just given Ukraine permission to use them in May 2024 at the same time as the GLMRS. If he’d done that, I don't think any of this would have happened.
Russia as usual would have just gone "meh whatever" and forgotten about its bluff as it did with the GLMRS which back then it was making a big fuss about and said it was a red line if the US gave Ukraien permission to use the GLMRS rockets or any missiles even the M777 shells against targets in Russia.
Back then Russia had artillery just over the border from Karkhiv oblast firing shells with a range of 25 km. And Ukraine couldn't fire back even with howitzers only 1 km away until the Russians stepped over the border.
Putin set that up as a big red line. That if Ukraine was permitted to fire shells back over the border that Russia would escalate. Many in the Doomsday Debunked group were panicking back then that the US would give that permission just as they are now about ATACMS.
This is how it was before Biden gave Ukraine that permission
.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC. Front line near Kudviika. Russia can position a tank here and fire shells all day across the border into Ukraine. The field behind these trees is in Ukraine. Russia. The UN charter is very clear.
- Russia is NOT permitted to fire its shells into Ukraine.
- Ukraine is PERMITTED to fire back to defend itself. Possible Russian tank position about here: SAFE, PERMITTED AND NOT escalatory to let Ukraine fire back at Russia.The situation before Biden stopped obeying Putin's bizarre red line: Biden does NOT let Ukraine hit these trees in Russia. Biden DOES let Ukraine hit this field in Ukraine. Any Ukrainian soldiers here, less than 700 meters away can't shoot back with US shells.
They can only sit here waiting and hoping they won't be killed by the next shell. This is why the speaker of the House in the USA, the leader of NATO, and many other leaders and experts are asking Biden to follow UK's example and drop this requirement. Street view images from: Streetview in Russia Google Maps Streetview in Ukraine. Google Maps
Details: BLOG: It's VERY SAFE for Biden to permit Ukraine to fire shells back over the Russian border when attacked - it is Russia should stop firing
Then the US gave that permission on May 20. Ukraine started using its M777 howitzers and GLMRS and of course Russia did nothing.
This is the situation today, since Biden gave that permission. Now Ukraine can fire shells back across the border at tanks and soldiers that are attacking Ukraine from teh other side of the border.
There was NEVER any sensible reason to prohibit Ukrainian soldiers from using US shells to fire back at an aggressor firing at them from the other side of the border. Since May 20 they are now permitted to do this. And of course Putin did nothing
.
Text on graphic: Because Biden stopped obeying Putin's bizarre red line:
Biden NOW also permits Ukrainians to drop shells in this wood across the front line in Russia.
Ukrainian soldiers here can now fire back at the tank across the border in Russia.
Biden ALWAYS let Ukraine drop shells in this field in Ukraine.
Russia is currently attacking these villages less than 2 km from the Russian border.
Map from here Google Maps
Details: BLOG: It's VERY SAFE for Biden to permit Ukraine to fire shells back over the Russian border when attacked - it is Russia should stop firing
Back then Biden gave permission not just for the M777s with a range of 25 km but also for HiMARS GLMRS with a range of 80 km.
But for some reason, though Ukraine already had the ATACMS back then and was using them against Crimea, Biden's permission wasn't extended to the ATACMS.
Ever since then Ukraine has been asking Biden to extend his permission to the 300 km ATACMS still for very legitimate targets - fighter jets that take off every day with glide bombs that they drop on Kharkiv city and missiles they use to hit targets all over Ukraine including its civilian power stations. Russia has now destroyed ALL of Ukraine’s fossil fuel powered power stations. They are stocking up with mobile generators for the winter and want to rebuild their power stations but Russia will likely destroy them again as quickly as they rebuild them.
So Ukraine has very sound and valid defensive reasons to want permission to use ATACMS as well as them also being important for disrupting Russian supplies to the front line which is another legitimate defensive use of the ATACMS.
That is all that this fuss is about. A very technical and rather minor point - that doesn't make sense. The US wouldn't put this restriction on any other operators of its ATACMS.
The HiMRS operators are Poland, Romania, Jordan, Singapore, Ukraine, and the UAE. I'm sure Jordan, Singapore, and the UAE don't have this same rule that they can only use ATACMS against targets in their own country.
It would especially be bizarre for tiny Singapore to have a rule that they can buy ATACMS from the US but can only fire them at targets in Singapore.
It is a very bizarre requirement. And 300 km may seem a long distance but it is only two thirds of the way to Moscow and a third of the way to Saint Petersburg (second largest Russian city).
There are over 200 valid defensive military targets within range of ATACMS. As you can see the range of ATACMS doesn’t come anywhere near Moscow so there is no way for Ukraine to use them to even target Moscow
.
. Hundreds of Russian Military Objects Are in Range of ATACMS
From: Institute for the Study of War
And the only reason Putin wants the ATACMS restricted in this way is because he has been relying on airfields and depots and command centers in Russia as a sanctuary for his fighter jets, helicopters, munitions dumps etc and also for his generals commanding the war - after Ukraine pushed them out of occupied Ukraine and Crimea with HiMARS / GLMRS / ATACMS / stormshadow.
All through the war, Biden has been super cautious - but I don't actually understand why he is so concerned about giving this permission for ATACMS and it may be some reason that hasn't been shared publicly.
The public reason makes no sense given the context of all the ways Ukraine is already doing similar things.
And Putin's red line again makes no sense but that is normal for him.
Anyway this fuss will go on until Biden gives that permission if he does.
As soon as he gives that permission if he does, nothing will happen and that will be the last of Putin's red lines.
Then, hopefully in the Doomday debunked group we will have a bit of a break from debunking Putin's red lines.
If Biden doesn't give this permission, Ukraine will continue to build up the capability until the permission becomes almost irrelevant because Ukraine is building hundreds of these missiles itself with the support of the economy of Europe which has a far larger economy than Russia and is sending billions of dollars to Ukraine now to support its own native defense industry.
Ukraine has the expertise, it has the industrial base, it now has the funding and it has the help of experts who know hwo the stormshadow and ATACMs work, and they already have a small number of missiles of both types that they already use against Russia. I don't think it will be that long before they produce hundreds of them themselves.
And if this is indeed needed for Ukraine to win then presumably it wins the war soon after.
This is the view of just about all the experts that I follow in the war that are knowledgeable in this area. They don't see what the fuss is about and think the permission is long overdue and that Biden should have supplied Ukraine with the ATACMS with this permission already.
This is also the view of Boris Johnson, former prime minister of the UK and of most legislators in the US Congress and their generals and just about everyone expert, I follow many people on Twitter for their expertise on the war and strategy and politics, and just about all say there is no valid reason for this restriction, no risk and the only thing it does is to slow down Ukraine and mean it will take it longer to win.
It also makes it harder for Ukraine to protect itself. Russia has now destroyed ALL the thermal fossil fuel based power stations in Ukraine. It has attacked the hydro stations too. The dams are almost impossible to breach from the air as they are so strong and the equipment is mainly below ground so the hydrostations are the hardest to attack. But some of the equipment can be damaged from the air. Of course it did destroy the biggest hydro dam the one above Kherson city and that is not going to be rebuilt any time soon.
Russia has ALREADY tried to disconnect the nuclear power stations from the grid. Nuclear power stations need a power feed to control the reactor and if they lose it can only run for a short time on electricity generators and will need to shut down. One of Russia's attacks in August was focused on trying to destroy the substation feeding a nuclear power station. It didn't succeed but it was clear it was trying to do this and to be of concern. As it develops the capability better it is likely able to disconnect one or more nuclear power station from teh grid. It does NOT target the nuclear power station itself - probably so as not to run the likely small risk of radiation from a damaged nuclear power station. It is not likely to target he power stations themselves but by destroying the substations it can put them into shutdown for shorter or longer periods of time over winter.
The blackouts of 2022-3 won't happen this year because of all the mobile power generators etc. But they will have long periods of time every day without power.
This didn't happen in 2023-4 because the Patriot air defences were sufficient and Russia hadn't developed the capability to hit the power stations through the protection of Patriot that it has today and wasn't using the glide bombs as extensively as this winter.
It will not be able to defeat Ukraine just means they will have to adjust to days with 4 to 18 hours without electricity - and the ATACMS can help prevent this happening by giving them a breather to rebuild and reconnect.
QUOTE STARTS
An apocalyptic scenario like a winter blackout will not occur, then-CEO of NPC Ukrenergo Volodymyr Kudrytskyi said on Aug. 29 as Ukraine is much better prepared for the winter of 2024-2025 in terms of the Ukrenergo transport network than it was in 2022-2023.
However, Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal noted on Sept. 10 that the upcoming winter could be the toughest yet.
Politico reported in September that the winter could be a turning point for Ukraine in the energy war, as Russia targets key substations that supply Ukrainian nuclear power plants.
The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine reported in a statement on Sept. 19 that the electricity deficit in Ukraine could lead to power outages lasting from four to 18 hours a day this winter.
. zelenskyy-warns-of-energy-crisis-as-russia-destroys-ukrainian-power-infrastructure-50453676.html
If Russia's missile attacks and glide bombs are not stopped with Patriot air defences and with these intermediate range attacks on Russia - then Russia is likely to succeed in shutting down it's nuclear power stations too.
Then Ukraine will be mainly dependent on mobile generators this winter + whatever electricity Europe can export over the border now that it is connected to the European power grid+ its hydro power. if those are still functioning.
So that's another reason for the ATACMS defensive as they will make it harder for Russia to attack Ukraine's power grid over winter.
That is the main reason that people think Putin is capable of making mad decisions because of his invasion of Ukraine. But in reality he thought it was risk free or he'd never have done it. He is very very cautious as we see throughout the war.
And he could never be convinced by anyone that an attack on NATO using nukes would be risk free or even benefit Russia.
While he gets constant feedback that BLUFFING to use nukes gets him lots of column inches (archaic metaphor 🙂 ) - global attention and delays the supply of Western defences to Ukraine for months to even years. When they fail he just recycles his bluff for the next "red line".
IF PUTIN CARRIES THROUGH ON HIS BLUFFS, E.G. TO EQUIP THE HOUTHIS WITH MISSILES - HE LOSES HIS ABILITY TO USE THE SAME BLUFF AGAIN - THIS IS WHY PUTIN WILL NEVER FOLLOW THORUGH ON ANY OF HIS MANY BLUFFS UNLESS IT IS SOMETHING HE WAS GOING TO DO ANYWAY NO MATER WHAT UKRAINE’S ALLIES DO
Even for bluffs that are not huge risks for Russia - such as his bluff about giving missiles to Houthis if Ukraine gets permissions to use the ~ATACMS on Russian soil - still here has to be a reason that Russia hasn't given missiles to Houthis already - perhaps because of the effects on Russian shipping, perhaps because he doesn't want to take a side opposed to Israel in the Middle East.
Whatever the reason - if Biden gave permission to Ukraine to use ATACMS against targets in Russia - what good at that point would it be to give missiles to the Houthis? It wouldn't change the permission Biden gave to Ukraine.
So - Putin bluffs about these things but never does them. And sometimes he does something supposedly as a response - but that's usually something he was going to do already anyway.
PUTIN IS ALREADY ESCALATING TO THE MAX - NO MATTER WHAT PERMISSION BIDEN GIVES TO UKRAINE - BUT IF UKRAINE GETS THIS PERMISSION PUTIN IS LESS ABLE TO HARM UKRAINE - AND IT IS EASIER FOR UKRAINE TO WIN FASTER
In short, Putin is already escalating to the max, doing everything he thinks he can do. He will continue to do so whatever permission Biden gives to Ukraine but if Ukraine gets this permission then Putin will lose a fair number of helicopters, fighter jets, munitions, fuel dumps, command posts within 300 km of the front line (depending on what Ukraine gets permission for) - and more importantly for the war, will have to station all his fighter jets, helicopters, munitions depots etc more than 300 km from the front line.
That will greatly complicate his supply for the war until they can reconfigure to supply from further away - and also mean fewer missions a day with smaller payloads because the fighter jets and helicopters have to take off with more fuel and travel further so that each mission takes a bit longer with a smaller payload of bombs.
THIS PERMISSION WON’T BY ITSELF WIN THE WAR FOR UKRAINE BUT WILL MAKE IT EASIER FOR IT TO WIN FASTER
That wouldn't win the war for Ukraine but it would make it easier for it to win faster.
But if Ukraine doesn't get this permission, they have already developed their own naive cruise missile similar to stormshadow and ballistic missile similar to ATACMS both with a similar payload. So then it's about quantity really - and improving capabilities too - but they have help from Europe and the US and they can likely build up to make hundreds of them eventually and so they can do maybe early next year what they would otherwise do today.
Plus their native missiles don't have the 300 km limit that is normal for export versions of missiles - they can hit targets over 500 km away for those two - and other drones with likely smaller payloads can travel well over 1000 km and right up to north of the Arctic circle from Ukraine.
So that's basically what's going on.
PUTIN IS JUST TRYING TO PUT A SPOKE IN UKRAINE’S WHEEL - NO WAY HE ATTACKS NATO WHICH MAKES NO SENSE AS HE WOULD LOSE ANY SUCH WAR VERY QUICKLY
Putin is just trying to put a spoke in Ukraine's wheel to make it harder for them to win the war and that is his only objective, he isn't doing this to try to attack NATO which makes no sense to ever do. There is a reason Russia invaded Ukraine rather than the far weaker Lithuania, the very obvious target from Belarus - because LIthuania is in NATO even though it doesn't even have a bomber or a fighter jet and just three smallish planes and no tanks. But it's in NATO and if Putin had tried to attack LIthuania then NATO would have sent their 40,000 rapid response force right away to defend LIthuania - and their advanced near radar invisible F-35 fighter jets and loads of other advanced gear and missiles that Ukraine still doesn't have - while they decided what to do next.
There wouldn't have been any of these arguments about what Lithuania could have, it would already have everything on day 1 and far more, lots of extra things that Ukraine will never get until after the war. And because of that Russia would never have invaded.
That is the difference between being a NATO member state and not being in NATO. That also is why Putin will never attack NATO. Not because NATO has nukes, they don't even need nukes really to protect NATO countries, because they are already so vastly superior to Russia in conventional forces.
There is no way that he could believe his spies if they claimed there was a risk free way to attack NATO which also makes absolutely no sense.
When losing against Ukraine it makes no sense to attack the strongest military alliance in the world NATO to bring them in fully on the same side as Ukraine against you. That is an obvious way to lose and lose quickly.
[by lose quickly, Admiral Radakin means pushed right out of NATO territory, and any missile systems firing at NATO destroyed - NATO wouldn't try to defeat Russia as it is purely defensive]
The only times Putin does carry through if it is something he planned to do anyway - like the infrastructure attacks on Ukraine in 2023/4 in response to the attack on the Kerch bridge. He did them immediately after apparently as a response but in reality it's pretty certain Ukraine knew those attacks were coming and timed the Kerch bridge explosion n 20222 just before the attacks. Because it is hard to program so many of those very ancient Soviet era missiles to attack targets on the same day and the experts say Russia must have done it long in advance.
So even with the Kerch bridge lorry explosion in 2022 and the apparent almost immediate response hitting civilian infrastructure throughout Ukraine - it wasn't because of the explosion, it was because he wanted to do the attacks on the infrastructure anyway.
If you think back to the numerous red lines he crossed they all fit one or other of those patterns. Did nothing and ignored his own threats. Or did something that he was surely going to do anyway.
It simply never makes sense to follow through on any of the threats unless it is something he was going to do anyway.
As for nukes - for a short time in the fall of 2022 the CIA assessed that there might be a risk of Putin using a small tactical nuke in Ukraine. Others think it's unlikely Russia seriously considered it. But whether or not, Biden then instructed Bill Burns, director of the CIA to talk to one of his counterparts in the Kremlin, Sergei Nerishki and tell him exactly what would happen if Russia used a tactical nuke.
The CIA presumably concluded that there was no longer a risk after that since
Bill Burns just said
"There was a moment in the fall of 2022 when I think there was a genuine risk of tactical nuclear weapons".
"A moment" means they resolved it and there is no longer a risk.
So whatever they said they'd do they assessed that this would stop Putin from using a nuke. Also it was not a bout a nuclear response it was about a conventional response.
Retired General Petraeus suggested that probably they told Putin that if he uses a nuke that the US would hit targets in occupied Ukraine and the Black Sea he didn't give an example but with its Tomahawk cruise missiles the US can likely sink the entire Black Sea fleet from as far away as fired from a sub in the Med. We know Russia has almost zero air defences now for its Black Sea fleet, they are no longer able to stay around Crimea. But with the US Tomahawk cruise missiles and given how vulnerable they are to the missiles Ukraine already has, the whole of the Black Sea would become unviable for them.
Whatever Burns said the US after that assessed that there was no longer any risk of even a tactical nuke.
Then there's whatever China and India said to Putin - they warned him very strongly against even thinking about using a nuke. Russia is isolated already would be very isolated without China and India.
The five nuclear-weapons states all signed a statement that a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought. China and Russia reiterated it since then.
That is just stating the obvious - it goes back to Reagen who first said this. It is not an agreement not to use nukes it is simply them saying what any nuclear weapon state can see, that it never in any way helps the country with nukes to use its nukes. It can never win a war with nukes. Nobody wins such a war
.
The reason is that Russia would lose its deterrent - it only deters by NOT using them. Russia is so weak a NATO response would be conventional surely and no longer involve nukes. More sensibly it would aim to prevent Russia from firing any more nukes.
BLOG: How nuclear deterrents work - like a bodyguard - their job is to prevent fights
And no country can ever win with a first strike. Nukes are used to prevent wars. They can’t be used to win a war. They are not destructive enough to do that.
Russia itself promotes fantasy ideas that it could somehow destroy NATO or one NATO country with its nukes but that is utter nonsense. It doesn’t even have one nuke for every NATO base in US plus the UK never mind all the battleships, fighter jets and all the other countries in NATO or the subs that can’t even be detected when they are out to sea.
So no, that’s nonsense. And the fallout from nukes is far less damaging than most people realize, most of the radioactivity is gone in weeks, it is safe to leave a shelter after 2 days to go somewhere safer, and you can protect yourself from fallout - we all knew how to do that in the cold war.
We don’t get those instructions today because none of the governments actually believe that there is any increased risk of nukes. We remain very safe.
So in short, I don't think there is even a remote chance of using nukes here. Only of a mistake not of a deliberate decision to use them, it makes no sense.
As for a mistake then Russia like the US has numerous precautions to prevent a mistake.
I've never seen it as a risk. Nor do many of those I uses as sources or follow.
The governments of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia - they should be the ones most cautious as they know Putin very well but they have never seen it as a risk.
Nor does Ukraine itself, or the military experts I follow or Poland - or the UK for that matter. Not seriously. The UK or US uses it for political leverage, for election messages, to try to get military funding, to get support for Ukraine, in many ways but not seriously.
As for why Biden is so hesitant - maybe it is just voter pressure. That if he approved quickly then some voters would be very keen but others might see him incorrectly as reckless?
The main suggestion I have seen is he does this because of inertia from the cold war. That he worries about it because he treated Russia a bit like if it was the Soviet Union at the time of the cold war.
I'm not sure how plausible that is myself. For me the cold war perspective makes it obvious it is not a risk. Maybe though. He is 11 years older than me. And from the US not the UK. He was born in 1942 which made him 20 at the time of the Cuba missile crisis in 1962. I was 6 and of course later on as I grew up, not very interested in politics.
Could it be something to do with being a young man in the USA during the Cuba missile crisis? Can understand if that makes one hypercautious about nuke threats.
Anyway the US has a hypercautious leader not a warmonger in Biden.
RUSSIA IS NOT WINNING IN UKRAINE
Russia tries to present an image of itself as an impossible to stop force in Russia that is advancing through ukraine and will do so no matter what its allies do to support Ukraine.
But it’s the opposite. Rusis ais in a very weak position and that is precisely why Putin is bluffing so much. Not because he wants to attack NATO. Because Putin is afraid of the far smaller country Ukraine, that it will win this war and push Russia out of Ukraine.
And Russia is NOT WINNING in Ukraine.
This is an animated gif I did for two maps shared by Professor Phillips P. OBrien of the changes since January 2024
.
Based on two maps shared in . Weekend Update #100: Rather Hard to Believe TBH
You can see the advance in Eastern Donbas near Pokrovsk that the mainstream media go on and on about. Russia has still not reached Pokrovsk and if they ever do it would be another months long battle like the ones for Avdiivka and Bakhmut.
Meanwhile Ukraine has captured an equally sized region across the Russian border in Kursk oblast and this has far wider strategic significance in the war.
It may help you see how Russia is NOT really winning this war in Ukraine and the idea that Ukraine has to surrender to Russia makes no sense.
All that will happen if Ukraine doesn't get those 300 km range permissions and has to stay with its 80 km range permission from the USA for strikes is that it will continue to do its own strikes of a similar nature to over 500 km and with smaller amounts of explosive per drone or occasional larger drones traveling very slowly that get through to over 1000 km
And build up that capacity and eventually do these strikes in quantity early next year rather than this year.
This is an example of one of several weaknesses in Russia’s front line. It doesn’t risk alerting Russia to anything it doesn’t know already to share this as this is a rumour that was shared by Russian soldiers soon after Ukraine began its incursion into Kursk oblast.
There are several places where an incursion the size of the Kursk incursion but across some weak point in the Russian front line could cause major problems for Russia - away from the heavily reinforced positions in Donbas.
The front line is over 1000 km long and is very weak in some places. One of its weak points is Kinburn spit. If Ukraine could take this and advance towards Crimea, it would cut off supplies both ways between Crimea and Kherson oblast
Text on graphic: TG means Telegram - lots of Russians are saying this is going on right now [AS OF Aug 23, 2024] - it may be a feint but if so Russian soldiers believe it - or may be real.
That one turned out to be fake.
Whatever the route, one way or another Ukraine does ALREADY often send soldiers to Kinburn spit and they provocatively raised a Ukraine flag there two days before the start of the Kursk incursion
.
. Special forces install Ukrainian flag on Kinburn Spit
Here is the video they shared:
It is one of three likely places that Ukraine has telegraphed to Russia loud and clear.
It is rather similar to the situation in 2022 when Ukraine telegraphed the Kherson counteroffensive for months and then did its first counteroffensive in Kharkiv liberating Kharkiv oblast after using these rumours to distract Russia to move its elite forces and best equipment as far as possible away from Kharkiv oblast. But eventually it did do its counteroffensive in Kherson oblast too.
It may well do the same again this year or next year
.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
A Kursk sized counteroffensive could make the South of Ukraine much more vulnerable.
Three likely places that Ukraine has telegraphed to the world
Within artillery range.
Russia now finds it hard to supply Crimea by sea or bridge
If Ukraine liberates Kherson, all of Crimea suddenly becomes impossible for Russia to supply with fuel, munitions, heavy equipment etc OR to evacuate equipment from
For details, see my section towards the end of this blog post about Russia’s weaknesses that Ukraine can potentially exploit to turn the tide of this war dramatically in its favour.
After seeing Zelensky’s victory plan, Biden tweeted “Ukraine will win this war”
.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
President Biden: “Ukraine will win this war”
After seeing Zelensky’s detailed victory plan.
Zelensky, interviewed on Fox news:
“We took the plan with details and we gave this plan to Biden. We shared some ideas about it with Kamala and with Donald.”
So only Biden has seen the detailed p[lan.
Russia is far weaker than you’d think from the very static front line - losing large amounts of munitions, fuel, and with big problems supplying the front line.
It has several weaknesses along the front line that Ukraine might exploit in a surprise counteroffensive that it would NOT share publicly.
President Biden tweeted that Ukraine will win this war after seeing Zelensky’s victory plan and Zelensky replied:.
TWEET BY BIDEN AND REPLY BY ZELENSKY
President Biden @POTUS
Ukraine will win this war.
And the United States will continue to stand beside them every step of the way.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський @ZelenskyyUa Thank you, dear @POTUS Joe Biden, for your clear-eyed stance and for your historic support for Ukraine.
Ukraine will win this war with the strong backing of its allies. We are grateful to the United States, President Biden, both parties in Congress, and all Americans for taking the lead in supporting Ukraine and liberty. This vital assistance helps us to protect our people, our independence, and freedom.
We particularly appreciate President Biden's efforts to rally global solidarity with Ukraine. We are already preparing for the upcoming meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in Ramstein format.
We must win this war together, Ukraine, the United States, and the entire free world, and we will.
7:07 PM · Sep 29, 2024
. Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) on X
https://x.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1840453329605824628
We saw Ukraine achieve very major successes.
2022: won the battle of Kyiv, its first major surprise, sunk the Moskva, liberated Snake island which was like an unsinkable battleship for Russia close to Ukraine, then the battle to liberate Kharkiv oblast, encircling and taking Izyum, liberating Kherson city, sunk the Moskva. Key to this was the way that Ukraine destroyed munitions dumps and fuel dumps throughout occupied Ukraine in huge conventional explosions.
2023: got through the Russian front lines at Verbove. Crossed the Dnipro at Krynky near Oleshky sands. The experts I followed were expecting a counteroffensive in the fall but then the US Ukraine bill got stuck in Congress and Ukraine had to shift to defense for the rest of 2023.
Pushed the Russian Black Sea fleet entirely out of Crimea, sunk a quarter of the Black Sea fleet, and freed the grain corridor so that Ukraine can export as much grain as it likes without Russian interference - a remarkable moment in military history where a country without a single destroyer soundly defeats one of the largest navies in the world yet it barely hit the news.2024: incursion into Kursk oblast. Now it’s at 1/3 of the Black Sea fleet destroyed and all the rail ferries over to Crimea out of action. Destroyed 3 months supply of shells and missiles for Russia’s war in 3 days including a series of explosions of a huge stockpile of Russian munitions so big it caused a series of minor earthquakes when it exploded (the largest, possibly a conventional explosion of over 1 kiloton and estimated that 30,000 tons total of explosives destroyed with the three strikes) - and destroyed much of Russia’s air defences in Crimea and occupied Ukraine.
As you can see the preparation in 2024 is very similar to in 2022. And whether or not Zelensky actually got deep strike permissions for ATACMS - we’ll likely only know once they start to use them. If they do then Russia as usual will do nothing.
But the mood music is that both Zelensky and Biden are very upbeat about it after their meeting.
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL
If you need to talk to me about something it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.
You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages). Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.
SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS
You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.
CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
NEW SHORT DEBUNKS
I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.
See Latest short debunks for new short debunks
I also do tweets about them. I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:
Then on the Doomsday Debunked wiki, see my Short Debunks page which is a single page of all the earlier short debunks in one page.
I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.