This is a fake article. Russia never intended to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Why would it do this when it is slowly and calculatedly winning the war against NATO? In addition, it would affect the people/land in Russia, plus the surrounding countries. Only a sick mind from the CIA or MI6 could think of such a morbid scenario, in which the use of a nuclear weapon is as natural as a visit to a store.
Such articles aim to instil the idea that it is better to lose the war (the reality on the battlefield clearly and bluntly states it) in Ukraine than for Russia to not use nuclear weapons. Please decide which propaganda line you are going for:
1) Russia is weak, it is left without soldiers/weapons/ammunition and therefore it will lose so there is a risk of nuclear escalation;
2) Russia is strong, it is winning the war against NATO in Ukraine and the bad guys that are and there is a risk of nuclear escalation.
Both versions cannot be valid at the same time.
So go easy on the propaganda or make it more "credible".
And this lady's and gentlemen was Chamberlain wrapped in in wannabe cojones. This little story sold as oh no we got so close to Nuclear war - led to the biggest drip feed of arms - equal to Chamberlaining Ukraine into oblivion had it nor been for Ukrainian agency .
The only thing keeping those around Putin from following his orders is the assurance that Moscow, too, will be reduced to rubble if and when they do...
This is a fake article. Russia never intended to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Why would it do this when it is slowly and calculatedly winning the war against NATO? In addition, it would affect the people/land in Russia, plus the surrounding countries. Only a sick mind from the CIA or MI6 could think of such a morbid scenario, in which the use of a nuclear weapon is as natural as a visit to a store.
Such articles aim to instil the idea that it is better to lose the war (the reality on the battlefield clearly and bluntly states it) in Ukraine than for Russia to not use nuclear weapons. Please decide which propaganda line you are going for:
1) Russia is weak, it is left without soldiers/weapons/ammunition and therefore it will lose so there is a risk of nuclear escalation;
2) Russia is strong, it is winning the war against NATO in Ukraine and the bad guys that are and there is a risk of nuclear escalation.
Both versions cannot be valid at the same time.
So go easy on the propaganda or make it more "credible".
Ruzzian cities
And this lady's and gentlemen was Chamberlain wrapped in in wannabe cojones. This little story sold as oh no we got so close to Nuclear war - led to the biggest drip feed of arms - equal to Chamberlaining Ukraine into oblivion had it nor been for Ukrainian agency .
Despicable event if in fact true.
Great article, and I share the notion that the danger now is greater than in 2022. Because now, for Putin, there is no off ramp.
There is only one thing that can prevent Putin, on the death throws of his reign, from throwing nukes on Ukraine.
It is called MAD.
As I argue in one of my articles , https://michielnijk.substack.com/p/should-we-provide-nuclear-weapons?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2, the only thing that will keep the second gate open is the promise to provide Ukraine with nukes if and after Putin manages to bring the true believers to follow his orders.
The only thing keeping those around Putin from following his orders is the assurance that Moscow, too, will be reduced to rubble if and when they do...