this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
49 points (76.9% liked)

News

30922 readers
3004 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

President Vladimir Putin warned the West on Wednesday that Russia was technically ready for nuclear war and that if the U.S. sent troops to Ukraine it would be considered a significant escalation of the war.

Putin, speaking just days before a March 15-17 election which is certain to give him another six years in power, said the nuclear war scenario was not "rushing" up and he saw no need for the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

"From a military-technical point of view, we are, of course, ready," Putin, 71, told Rossiya-1 television and news agency RIA in response to a question whether the country was really ready for a nuclear war.

Putin said the U.S. understood that if it deployed American troops on Russian territory - or to Ukraine - Russia would treat the move as an intervention.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 year ago (17 children)

He starts sounding like Kim Jong Un.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's like he's standing in front of a mirror, flexing his muscles, whispering to himself he's the biggest and toughest mf'er around.

Just what the world needs. An imbecilic jackass who's nuclear capable.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Just what the world needs. Another imbecilic jackass who's nuclear capable.

There. FTFY.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Thanks. It is better than the original. 👍

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

“If you help Ukraine, we might end all life on earth”. Putin knows that nuclear war is unwinnable, and would destroy his empire as well, so if he’s a rational actor, the only use of nuclear weapons is as a prop for bluffing.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

if he’s a rational actor

That’s a pretty gigantic if there.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Putin is a rational actor. And his actions have been wildly successful so far in achieving his goals.
(Improving the lives of the Russian people is not among those goals)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well to a degree.

He certainly didn't want Sweden and Norway to join NATO and I doubt he wanted a multi year long war in Ukraine.

But I do agree that he certainly won't throw nukes just cause hurr durr he is such a crazy dictator.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Yep, he's a tactician but not a strategist. He makes individual moves and bets that can be very successful. Like supporting/blackmailing (?) Trump, and interfering with the 2016 election. That was an incredible payoff for him. But he's not in control strategically.

He is very rational, though, and would not cross a line that would force a US response that would remove him from power. Which is exactly what would happen if seriously attempted to initiate nuclear war, and if pretty much anyone but Trump was president.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

He likes his palaces, wants to enjoy them, and wants the children he had with his mistresses to inherit them, surely.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ruzzias latest "final warning", LOL.

Fuck around & find out. If US troops are defending Ukraine, it's too late for you Putin. At that point the Ruzzian Federation is at its end, one way or another, regardless of which button you push.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

You know if Puntin was going down he is crazy enough to want to take the world with him. So be careful what you wish for.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Is it wednesday again already?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

China’s final warning.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

Oh, I thought it was tuesday, he said the same thing last tuesday, and the day before, and last week. And at the start of the war.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

I'm pretty sure they've been ready for nuclear war since 1949.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not really the same scenario.

China repeatedly warned the US in situations where the US was likely to do something. The US went right ahead and did it anyway, and China didn't do anything.

Putin is warning the US about if the US sends troops, a scenario that the US has consistently said -- as recently as the last few weeks -- that it does not intend to do.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/white-house-rules-out-sending-troops-to-ukraine-biden-administration-says-there-will-be-no-u-s-soldiers-on-the-ground-after-french-president-macron-said-western-forces-were-a-possibility/ar-BB1j0b3d

White House spokesman John Kirby said France was a 'sovereign nation' which, like any other NATO country, could make its own decision on whether to send troops to Ukraine.

But he added: 'The only U.S. military personnel in Ukraine are associated with the embassy...The president's been clear. There's not going to be U.S. troops on the ground.'

That's probably a pretty safe warning for Putin to issue, because the US is unlikely to do what he's warning about.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This isn't the first time they threatened nukes. Lines were crossed, and nothing happened. These threats no longer seem credible.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

BTW, who's gonna be his successor once he'll pass away? Has that already been decided?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nope. Any potentials are staying quiet in order to avoid accidentally exiting through a window.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So no list of names has been written? Neither a son in case it bocomes a new monarchy? I can't believe it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

To be honest, without looking it up, I don't even know how many kids he has.
They did a good job staying out of the limelight or the media is too scared to go after them. Either way, there's little I can say about them.

Nah, for now i rather think one of the oligarchs will eventually come out of the shadows to take over as the public figure while the rest keep them in check as counsel. They've been kept on a tight leash long enough to not want it happen for another generation.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Nothing official, but I believe it's likely to be Nikolai Patrushev

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"Technically" ready isn't much of a boast about anything. Basically "yeah, you know we have nuclear weapons. Well, so we checked and they do work!" Well guess what Vladdo, the United States, France, the UK are also 'technically ready'. But anyway, this is very different than saying we're politically or strategically ready, so it's not really news. Of course there are those soulless cretins on Russian TV discussing nuking Europe often, but nobody with a brain considers that anything other than an aggressive jerk-off session.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Tankies: why would the US do this?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Sounds like Kim Jong Il, and his ineffectual son. I believe you Putin. I truly do.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

He probably bought stocks of some nuclear shelter manufacturers...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

"Our words are backed up with nukes"

load more comments
view more: next ›