Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Monday that the US and Russia have had “sporadic” contact over the issue of nuclear arms as tensions are soaring between the world’s largest nuclear-armed powers.
“There are channels for dialogue at the proper level, but they are of a very sporadic nature. At least they allow for the exchange of some emergency messages about each other’s positions,” Peskov said.
When Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a partial mobilization last week, he warned that Russia could use nuclear weapons to protect its “territorial integrity.” The warning was significant since Russian territory is set to expand into Ukraine once referendums on joining Russia are completed in Russian-controlled areas.
On Sunday, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said the US warned Russia it would face “catastrophic consequences” if it used a nuclear weapon in Ukraine.
Sullivan wouldn’t explain what that means but said the US “spelled out in detail” to Russia how it would respond. When asked if Russia had received such a message from the US, Peskov declined to comment.
Since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, there have been virtually no public high-level meetings between US and Russian officials. Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, in July, but the conversation was focused on a potential prisoner swap.
Obvious issue: no actual captain at helm of this ship careening through the waters.
Many big rocks in these murky waters……
Still flogging this BS about Russian “nuclear threats”, I see. Andrei Martyanov blew that out of the water yet again in his video today:
Is Intellect Enough?
I’m not sure I can possibly fathom why Russia would need to use nukes at all, especially over Ukraine. Is this a giant game of CHICKEN? Or should we get ready to “duck and cover”? (If nuclear war breaks out, I intend on drinking Black Russians… And as the photo below illustrates, I’ll have a big cigar to along with it…) A simple question… Is Vlad MAD?!
Yes, this is in fact a giant game of CHICKEN.
Unless someone actually DOES go nuclear, there’s no “existential” danger to Russia, the US, Ukraine, et al.
But there is an existential danger to particular regimes.
Zelensky could be assassinated or otherwise removed by Russians or, if he makes the wrong moves, by Ukrainian Nazis or America special operators.
Putin could continue to fail to find a plausible/graceful way out of his regime’s fiasco and be removed from power, alive or dead, by either his controllers or his opponents.
In European parliamentary democracies, governments could fall with the withdrawals of parties from coalitions, bringing on snap elections, as inflation and energy shortages bite.
The US’s de facto one-party regime has become good at insulating itself from existential political repercussions.
So you don’t accept that Russia’s position on the use of nuclear weapons has been and remains unchanged for years? That they would only be used if the territory of Russia were compromised so as to threaten the existence of the Russian state?
I ask because in my view, Russian policy on the use of nuclear weapons remains unchanged – unless of course we’re going to ask Tony Blinken to interpret it for us.
Well, the “change” involved will be when Putin declares the parts of Ukraine occupied by Russian forces to be “the territory of Russia.”
The DPR and LPR have nearly unanimously voted to join Russia, according to RT.
Well, they seceded from Ukraine eight years ago, have been asking Russia to annex them ever since, and during the intervening time or since the invasion most of those who didn’t want to stop being Ukrainians were likely driven out. So those “referendums” presumably didn’t require behind the scenes rigging or out front gunpoint voting to get the desired outcome. And they will presumably end up on the Russian side of the line of control when Putin’s masters finally let him or his successor order the withdrawal from Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, announce a unilateral ceasefire, and declare “victory.”
K and Z still remain to be seen, Thomas…
True. It does remain to be seen how long it will be before the Russian forces withdraw from them.
If he does in fact word it this way, yes. We shall see (1) whether the vote allows him to say so, and (2) he decides to frame the change in those terms. I’ve been watching his press conferences lately, and he appears to be in full possession of his facts and faculties, especially compared to similar appearances on similar subjects by our leadership. I would say he will make a statement which takes your implication fully into account.
To add, he has the option of deciding just where the line comes re survival of the Russian state.
How’s that for obfuscation in the pursuit of good outcomes for those of us who don’t have fully functional bomb shelters 😉