EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell issued a threat against Russia on Thursday, warning that Western powers would “annihilate” the Russian army if Moscow uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
“Putin is saying he is not bluffing. Well, he cannot afford bluffing, and it has to be clear that the people supporting Ukraine and the European Union and the Member States, and the United States and NATO are not bluffing neither,” Borrel said at a European Diplomatic Academy event in Bruges, Belgium.
“Any nuclear attack against Ukraine will create an answer, not a nuclear answer but such a powerful answer from the military side that the Russian Army will be annihilated,” he added.
The warning from Borrel came as NATO defense ministers held the second day of talks in Brussels, which included a closed-door meeting of the alliance’s nuclear planning group, the body that sets and reviews NATO’s nuclear policies.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg also warned Russia against using nuclear weapons, saying it would have “severe consequences.” But he said the chances of NATO using a nuclear weapon are “extremely remote.”
When announcing a partial mobilization last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that Russia could use all of the weapons at its disposal to defend its “territorial integrity.”
Russian officials insist Putin’s comments were nothing new and fell within Russia’s long-established military doctrine, which says nuclear weapons could be used if the country faces an “existential threat.” But the warning was significant since Russia has extended its territory by annexing areas in Ukraine under its control, and other Russian officials have explicitly said they could defend the new territories with nuclear weapons.
Well, all these people are morons. Do any of them remember (or ever learned about) how many times a nuclear war nearly started — seconds away — and was prevented by some individual going against orders? I sincerely wish these people lived on another planet. One very, very far away. I’m trying to visualize them being transported to Planet X — oh, where is a transporter when you need one?
Did you miss the point that this was a way to tell the Russians not to make this a nuclear war? I.e. this only comes into play if the Russians have already med this a nuclear war.
You seem to forget standing armies are obsolete regardless when we go nuclear.
Why do you suppose that I have forgotten this?
Because your response meant to put validity to what EU was trying to say. Destroying Russian Army means the destruction of NATO and most of Europe.
My comment only demonstrated that this threat was a response to the situation where the Russians had already turned this into a nuclear war. It did not concern itself with the potential value of armies in a post nuclear landscape.
So the question is do you think that this is not a real threat because the Russians would not mind having their army destroyed if they use e.g. a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine?
If EU plans to destroy the Russian Army after Ukraine gets nuked, this will by default spark WW3. The point is that standing armies being destroyed is no longer the boogeyman for Russians to fear.
That is kind of the point, i.e. EU is saying that they will use conventional means to destroy the Russian army if they use nukes in Ukraine, forcing the choice on Russia: ‘start WW3’ or refrain from using nukes in Ukraine.
I seriously doubt EU would use “conventional” method. Then again, U.S. and NATO have a lot of targets that can be destroyed conventionally as well in a tit for tad. And certainly irrelevant.
well then that is what you should write i.e. that you believe EU is threatening nuclear war, though EU’s only nuclear power (France) specifically has ruled this out even in the event of the Russians using nukes in Ukraine.
If that is your point you should try to write that you think a non nuclear armed power is threatening the use of arms it does not have – kind of hard to believe – so really a non threat, but if that is what you believe then I guess it does not make much sense to debate what the in that case non threat is supposed to achieve.
Rather than deviate from what I wrote, focus on the original post you wrote to Angieszka.
What I wrote was that the EU threat is a conventional threat that forces the choice on the Russians; do they want a what will likely in the end be a nuclear war with the west then by all means start using nukes in Ukraine – if they do not want this then refrain.
That was an answer to Angieszka proposing that EU was/is the one threatening nuclear war – it clearly is not.
Well than. You have my answer. Cheers.
Sure as I tried to point out your answer made very little sense to me, so I guess what you are saying here is that you cannot explain why the idea that the armies have no importance in a post nuclear war scenario is relevant to the EU’s threat.
B2 bomber carries 80 500lb bombs we have 20 of these so 1600 bombs means 1600 targets destroyed in one night. Now throw in several hundred F-35 2 bombs each. After a few nights of that Russia has no air defense to worry abou
Try not to fantasize about free tagging a nuclear armed country without any consequences.
So what is this BS? Is Russia lashing out in fear that NATO may have some influence in a country on its border or is Russia invulnerable behind a massive nuclear shield?
You do realize that B2 bombers have limited use against vlf radar systems, right? That look down airborne systems spot the aircraft easily? That they would require airborne ew platforms. And those need decent weather conditions and are very vulnerable to air defense?
Of course you must know that the NATO air bases become open to attack to Russian missiles that NATO has no defence against?
The F35? Really? That flying taxpayer rip off?
Oh right, Russian wonder weapons.
LOL. The Serbs figured out the VLF vulnerability 25 years ago. .They just didn’t have the resources to properly exploit it.
Much of the rest is simply physics… And tactics.
The lumbering F 35 problems have more to due to the corrupt political system in the USA and the stupidity of a one fighter fits all roles.
No Russian wonder weapons.
Do not forget the NATO capitol cities when you think targets. “Kill the chickens to scare the monkeys.” weakest first. There a lot of chickens there, and only two or three monkeys. Zelensky says Russia must be desperate. BUT its not.
Why should they use a tactical nuclear weapon against Ukraine? It is much more logical to use it against Poland, where NATO troops are concentrated.
As I understand it EU needs to make a/the threat clear only if the Russians are about to nuke Ukraine, if they are about to nuke a NATO country the threat is already stated.
They are talking so much about using nukes in Ukraine, so one starts suspect, NATO is preparing some kind of a false flag nuclear or chemical disaster in Ukraine for the warmongering reason.
If NATO wanted to get involved all they needed to have done was to deliver Ukraine longer ranged rockets for their HIMARS, Tanks like the M1 or planes – so why wait until the Ukrainians are the ones to take territory and the clean up of any WMD will be NATO/Ukraine’s problem?
US did it many times before. The false-flag big provocation is good for the mobilization of “the free world” against Russia. Every time when US needed the support of other NATO countries against Russia, they used this trick and it always worked.
The US already has the support of most of the west, there is no pressing need for anything more at present – this would have been a great theory in April or May – now it is superfluous. Moreover using WMD’s is very unlikely to mean that any in the west would be happy to go to Ukraine – so kind of counterproductive at present.
US have the unconditional support of EU corrupted elite. The ordinary people in France, Italy and Germany are losing their enthusiasm for the crusade against Russia. Thats why even Merkel started to speak. German industry is degrading too fast. The people started to suspect that something is going terribly wrong.
The ordinary people of the rest of EU however are very concerned about Russia, not that anyone wants a crusade against Russia, just about all will be content to have the Russians vacate all occupied territories.
Their problem is that they will not get Russian energy even if they ended their support for Ukraine – nor do the majority actually desire this – in Germany perhaps, but if Germany, Italy and France were to force an end to sanctions on Russia upon the rest of EU, EU would disintegrate and they would be in far more trouble than they are with more expensive gas.
The adequate politicians care about people of their own countries, not about EU. The problem with EU bureaucracy, they are working for the globalist elite.
Russian gas will come eventually to EU over Turkey. First to Balkans, Hungary and Austria, if something left, then Germany may also have a bit, but the price would be of course higher than over Nord Stream. So, in the end, Germans are the main losers. All this mess could be avoided, if German politicians (together with Macron) would force Kiev regime to respect Minsk Agreements. Germany and France were the guarantors of those agreements and yet, because of their total corruption, they helped Americans to sabotage it.
The problem with that suggestion is that UK very much shows how poorly even the country the least dependent of being in EU does by leaving. You may say that EU is working only for the globalist elites, but leaving most certainly works against most everyone in the economies that leave.
The point being that the EU economies are not likely ever to allow themselves to get as dependent on Russian energy as they were prior to the Ukrainian war – there is not a lot of political capital in that.
By the time Olaf Scholz came to office that however was in no way enough to satisfy Putin.
Well to be fair the officials in Donetsk and Luhansk completely failed to take the first steps to implement the MinskII agreement – so pressuring Zelenskyy would not likely have worked before Putin pressured his lot to comply.
You should read yourself Minsk Agreements and not repeat the propaganda. First step there ought to be the change in Ukrainian Constitution and direct negotiation between Kiev regime and Donbass republics. Kiev regime did absolutely nothing about that. It was Kiev regime who categorically refused to negotiate with Donbass.
They never made a secret in Kiev that their goal is to gain the time, prepare the army and take Donbass by the military force.
If that was the plan it was a shit plan – as it was only after withdrawing from Kyiv that they were able to make any progress in the Donbas that they had not already made even before moving in any force against Kyiv.
Most of the WEST: not most of the WORLD.
4 countries voted with Russia last – not even their own RF ‘friends’ vote with them!
NATO is involved up to their ears. Don’t be so thick.
Not sure if this is an argument one way or the other – NATO involved or not, does not change anything for this debate.
As Bianca observed: “hollow men” making threats. WTF
How many NATO capitols do these EU dolts think will get nuked while they annihilate the Russian Army????
One, two, five, ten…. all of them….????? Any guesses which ones will be in the first five….?????
That is rather the point – this is a vailed threat of nuclear war – only it is up to the Russians to escalate it to that level – I rather think they will not, as I doubt it was their actual plan.
I have back channel conformation that the tooth ferry does NOT intend “non nuclear” annihilation of Russian Army…
It was a way to set up a false flag nuclear incident. How did you miss that since false flags are preceded by “don’t do that” comments by useful idiots like Borrel.
Why would the west make a false flag operation when Ukraine is winning?
Ukraine is winning???
Well they have taken much more territory than the Russians since July. So winning at least for right now.
In the last couple of days Ukraine lost, according to Ukrainian sources, about 30% of electric generation capacity. It looks, Ukrainian anti-missile system is absent. The front line stays as it is already several days. Russia mobilized other 300K and in a month they will join Russian army in Ukraine. I don’t see any sign of Ukrainian success outside of taking some undefended territory in Kharkov region. No doubt, Ukraine, or rather NATO in Ukraine, is preparing a new offensive. Russia is doing the same.
Sure but much of it has already been reestablished – so a very expensive way to cut the electricity for a couple of days!?
They actually managed to shoot down 43 out of about 100 missiles and suicide drones, so not absent by any standards.
Sure – there was also a pause after the first drive in September – we should expect the Russians to get better so the amount of territory taken in October is significantly smaller, but still big compared with what Russia managed from late May to July. And Moscow calls for evacuations of occupied Kherson region so things not exactly going great.
www DOT upi DOT com/Top_News/World-News/2022/10/14/3691665744425/
Yes, the interesting question is can they equip and supply them?
So the territory taken in Kherson does not count? And the call for evacuation also is a thing you have missed?
That is right – all I was saying was that between late August and mid October the Ukrainians have been taking more territory than the Russians did from about May to July. If the Russians can supply and equip the 300K they have mobilized then the next battles will be very interesting.
The logic of Russian headquarters was not to take as much territory as possible, but to destroy the enemy army. They made Ukraine and NATO pay a very high price for the offensive. Russian offensive was done different way: first they used massive artillery and aircraft bombardment and only after that, when the resistance is very weak, the infantry moved forward. That’s why Ukrainian casualties were much higher than Russian.
The damage done to Ukrainian electric generation capacity is much greater (may be, hundreds of times greater) than the cost of the missiles and the drones. If Russia carry on like this a weak longer, Ukrainian industry will stop to function.
Seeing as the Ukrainian army is either just outsmarting the Russians or as even the Russian state media is admitting to, able to push the Russians out of strongpoints they wanted to keep (E.g. Izium, Lyman and now soon Kherson!?), it would seem clear that the Russians have failed even worse at destroying the Ukrainian army than they have at taking Donetsk.
Difficult to know the Ukrainian losses, the Russian losses are also difficult to know but the need to mobilize has told the average Russian a lot.
Losses are often that when on the offensive – the only question is if they are higher than what can be sustained – and little is suggesting that they are – France lost (on average) more men every day of WWI than the Ukrainians are losing on average since February 24.
The electricity was out for one or two days – and there is very little evidence that the Russians can keep this level of bombardment up – in fact it was already much lower the very next day – higher than most other days but significantly lower than the first day.
Ukraine had already 4 mobilizations. At the moment, according to different military experts, Ukrainian army about 50% is composed of foreigners. Mostly from NATO countries. Two months ago, some American politicians asked – where disappeared 200K strong Ukrainian army which Americans were training the last 8 years? You can listen, for example, Scott Ritter. He is talking often about this conflict, and he knows what he is talking about.
Russia used in Ukraine altogether less than 200K. They are still fighting, but for the big offensive Russia needs 3 times as many. From the beginning, many experts made it clear that 200K is not enough. Probably, at the beginning Putin never had another goal, but to protect Donbass republics from the complete ethnic cleansing and to create a land bridge from central Russia to Crimea.
That sounds really hard to believe – 50% being foreign volunteers – I mean I know that there were a lot, but 50%, are you sure? If true then that is very bad for the Russians as there is then a much larger pool of people to recruit from, but then I kind of doubt these figures.
I’m not usually taking the word of a pro Putin source for what is wrong about Ukraine – too much propaganda (so no e.g. Scott Ritter and no Macgreggor) I do take the word of Russian state tv propagandist for how bad things are working out in Russia, and I basically take e.g. the Danish State tv channel’s word for how bad things are going for the Ukrainians.
Sounds likely – I have heard higher figures but I’ll not argue the point.
Very strange way to go about it if that was his aim – the two pronged attack on Kyiv seems particularly wasteful if this was the goal.
The quick move of some Russian units to Kiev could have the goal to keep Ukrainian army tied in central Ukraine while the other Russian units took Kherson region almost without fight and surrounded the key town Mariupol. At the time of Russian intervention, Ukrainian army was much bigger than Russian one. The other reason could be the miscalculation about the regional authorities of the eastern regions of Ukraine. Obviously, there was a hope in Kremlin that after Russian intervention they could change the sides, which they never did. So, after realizing that Ukrainian administrations which were left in rear of Russian army, started the sabotage activity, Russian army retreated back. The other reason was to force Kiev to the peace negotiation, which went more or less successfully, and they reached a certain progress, after which, Russia agreed to retreat. Only urgent interference of Boris Johnson blocked any possibility for the peace settlement. Anyway, Russia had no force to protect the rear of the units at the Kiev. However, the main achievement of the first stage of the operation was the neutralization of Ukrainian offensive against Donetsk and the capture of the land between Crimea and Russia. Zaporozhie nuclear station was also captured in the first days of the intervention as well as the greater part of Zaporozhie region.
Sure.
Which military experts are those?
Also, who the hell supports a man like Ritter who’s twice been convicted of trying to meet up with underage girls? You can’t find a single pundit who isn’t a sex predator to listen to?
Ritter is not just a “pundit.” He’s a person with particular areas of expertise as a former US Marine intelligence officer and UNSCOM weapons inspector.
While I may personally dislike a nuclear physicist who’s also a convicted sex offender, neither that dislike nor the conviction has any bearing on whether his calculations are correct.
They also accused Assange of some sex crime. They are doing this against the independent journalists and the independent experts quite regular. I have no reason to pay any attention to those accusations.
You may watch, for example, Redacted, and learn something about what is going on in Ukraine from them. Or everyone who doesn’t agree with the corporate media is a criminal?
“If Russia carry on like this a weak longer, Ukrainian industry will stop to function.”
That would be more convincing if I hadn’t heard it at least once a “weak” since February 24.
They talked a lot about that, and many experts wondered why Russia refuses to bomb Ukrainian infrastructure. They started do this only after the attack against Crimean bridge. First massive attack against Ukrainian energy infrastructure happened 3 days ago. Let’s see what happens next.
Thommmmaaaassss…you’re splitting hairs again!
Some type on phone keyboards with type ahead aids.
Nobody’s winning. Or, rather the “winners” are limited to various military-industrial complex firms, etc.
At least, Russia got already 4 regions of the former Ukrainian SSR. The other 4 regions are watching, waiting and hoping.
The other great winner of this mess is China. Russian gas and oil would be redirected mostly to China. At the moment, they are about to start the construction of a new pipeline from Siberia over Mongolia to China. The other Russian natural resources will move the same direction.
This guy gets it.
You’re right, against the event; but, more prosaically, it was just more of the usual fatuus bluster attempting to rally an EU public that’s gone spiritless with the the whole lot of them and their overdone bogey bashing.
Yes, the Russians did gather on the border. I’m not saying the invasion was right, but this situation is too dangerous to not understand the background. The Russians have advocated for increasing denuclearization via START treaty for years; US during Trump insisted on China becoming participant of treaty (China has 300+ nukes) which was clearly a way for US to avoid dealing with Russia on the issue. Seriously, US has clung to idea of Russia as bad relentlessly. In old Soviet, only aging, former Foreign Minister Molotov believed nuclear war winnable. Others did not. Andropov (premier 1983-4) had begun working on detente with US in 1972 but was paranoid re US attitudes about such a war (Able/Archer nearly proved catastrophic). Successor Chernenko resumed arms control talks with US, died in about one year of assuming power. Gorbachev came after this. In sum, Russia knows (1) that US has used nukes twice, (2) that US exhibits an intermittent concern about nuclear but spends $$ on advanced & now remote-controlled/un”personed” weaponry, (3) NATO, formed to counter USSR, since breakup of the bloc has expanded from 9 to over 20 members, plus many semi-members, and its purpose remains to “counter USSR.” Which no longer exists.
NATO’s purpose remains to protect its members from Russian aggression – yes we used to call it Soviet aggression, but that is just semantics.
The only thing NATO has “protected” since 1991 is the US military-industrial complex’s bottom line.
I’m sure they protected that, but I’m equally sure that at least one of the Baltic states is more than happy that they joined NATO as the Duma decided to rescind their acknowledgement of them leaving the Soviet Union – so while you may feel this is the truth I’m fairly sure that others have felt quite protected and thus more free to express their thoughts.
When it comes to public policy, I don’t make the mistake of believing that what I “feel” is relevant.
You probably have the luxury never to have had to cower in fear to speak your mind – the people of the Baltic states have not all had that luxury. So they may put quite a different value to their feeling of being free to say what they think – and quite a few of them are more than a little convinced that their country could easily have been pressured into acting differently if not for their NATO membership – and hence think that NATO actually did protect their freedom.
I can understand that you may disagree but I can assure you that they do not agree wit the idea that NATO membership had no implications for their country or the political developments that their NATO membership allowed them to pursue.
The Serbs hate Albanians, etc. etc. This is not the problem of the US. Europe is a warren of ancient ethnic disputes. The US should not be involved. US out of NATO.
That is a domestic US decision, so not for me to say.
But first they provoke the Russian aggression so they can remain relevant. And that started when the Cold War ended and continues to this very day:
NATO to Hold Nuclear Exercise Despite Tensions With Russia
https://news.antiwar.com/2022/10/11/nato-to-hold-nuclear-exercise-despite-tensions-with-russia/
They provoke Russian aggression – there would be no need of NATO if the Russians were not so easily provoked.
Good answer. At least you’re not pretending they weren’t provoked. But I guess you think it’s alright if you downplay the provocations since you have nothing else after admitting they were indeed provoked. Now let NATO do those nuke drills since it would send the “wrong message” to do anything that might simmer down the tensions. After all, the US would have sat idly by under the same circumstances.
My first reply is that I do not think unnecessary provocations is a wise thing to do, but I guess that then I would have to explain what unnecessary means: So we do the exercises to tease out where we would have problems in working together – a thing that is necessary at a rate higher than most would think, and we do them to show the Russians what our capabilities are, so they do not misjudge what we would be capable of doing.
This is why I have never thought that Warsaw pact exercises were provocations, the RF exercise in 2021 however showed that this is not always so, yet it also demonstrated that nations on exercise together do not necessary go to war together – so that Putin wanted the exercise to spillover into an invasion did not mean that Belarus would take active part in the invasion.
The exact same thing would hold true for NATO – i.e. for an exercise to spillover into a war the individual nations would have to agree – there is hence about zero chance that NATO could start a war from an exercise without the Russians knowing in advance – as we indeed did with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
I think the fact that a nation deciding to join a defense pact because it fears a Russian military action, is seen by the Russians as a provocation is what is the core of my issue with the Russian hypersensitivity.
The US has never responded to Russian drills (nuclear or otherwise) by invading any country AFAIK. The US has invaded several countries since WWII but annexed none of them nor indeed provinces of any of them. Should NATO have cancelled this drill – I think it would actually send the wrong signal for several reasons:
1) We need now more than ever to make sure we can work together and iron out any problems.
2) Putin has threatened us – in fairly clear terms – backing down would send the wrong signal
– The Russians need to know that we are not bluffing (the risk of war goes up if they think we are, and we are not)
Does this particular exercise come at a problematic time, yes – it would have been better had it been this summer – while tempers were calmer.
“I think the fact that a nation deciding to join a defense pact because it fears a Russian military action, is seen by the Russians as a provocation is what is the core of my issue with the Russian hypersensitivity.”
I guess we’d have to just guess what the US response would have been under similar conditions. Of course, the “whataboutism” claim will be forthcoming but whataboutism fits since the US has been the main provocateur since the Cold War ended. Plus, we did the Iraq invasion which was multiple times worse and based on the flimsiest of excuses in comparison.
“The US has never responded to Russian drills (nuclear or otherwise) by invading any country AFAIK.”
Oh please, as if today’s situation doesn’t make that statement completely ridiculous.
“2) Putin has threatened us – in fairly clear terms – backing down would send the wrong signal.”
Putin responded to our actions. Jesus Christ, talk about rearranging history.
Not going to play the whataboutism card – just going to say that Cuba and Venezuela making any kind of pacts with Russia would not and have not led to a US invasion nor annexation of any part of their territories – I think Canada and Mexico would have the same liberty.
Oh so you can name the countries that have been invaded because of they held an exercise?
Yes he did and the actions we took were to supply Ukraine with weapons – if that leads to Putin threatening us then we would be telling him that he can e.g. use nukes in Ukraine without retaliatory measures being imposed on Russia – that would not be true, so we should not send that signal.
You perhaps remember that Saddam Hussein thought he was told that he could invade Kuwait – that was a case of the wrong signal being send – I was against the Iraq war and it likely could have been avoided had the US in more clear terms send the signal that they would act if Saddam invaded.
“Not going to play the whataboutism card – just going to say that Cuba and Venezuela making any kind of pacts with Russia would not and have not led to a US invasion nor annexation of any part of their territories – I think Canada and Mexico would have the same liberty.”
“Any” kind of pacts? I don’t even think you believe that. Same with Canada and Mexico. But it wasn’t limited to “pacts”. There was the coup, the excessive war games and of course our economic warfare in the form of sanctions.
“Oh so you can name the countries that have been invaded because of they held an exercise?”
I thought the reasons were obvious. You even said they shouldn’t do them now and should have done them in the summer.
“Yes he did and the actions we took were to supply Ukraine with weapons – if that leads to Putin threatening us then we would be telling him that he can e.g. use nukes in Ukraine without retaliatory measures being imposed on Russia – that would not be true, so we should not send that signal.”
Again, you agree that he reacted to our provocations. Shouldn’t that mean that it should behoove those that provoked to be the one to initiate a cease to hostilities? Where is the “yes, we provoked this, so we are backing off” signal. Not in our DNA, so we escalate instead.
Yes Mexico and Canada can join any pact they want – seeing as Cuba did so without actually bein invaded from 1962 to the present and that through the break up of the Soviet Union where the US could have thought that Moscow was otherwise engaged.
If it was a coup it was one very odd one – the people who took power immediately started preparing for new elections – not usually seen when people without public support makes a coup. There were no NATO exercises leading up to the ousting of the Ukrainian president and there were only sanctions imposed on Russia after Putin illegally annexed Crimea and thus broke the Budapest agreement.
So you could not name any countries that NATO has invaded because they held military exercises – and I told you why these exercises now had to go on – to prevent sending the wrong signal.
No we reacted to his provocation – invading Ukraine! Pretending that the fact that we supply Ukraine with weapons when Putin has broken the Budapest agreement, and this somehow is the West provoking Putin is back to front or upside down.
“Yes Mexico and Canada can join any pact they want – seeing as Cuba did so without actually being invaded from 1962 to the present and that through the break up of the Soviet Union where the US could have thought that Moscow was otherwise engaged.”
If Cuba would have been courted to join the Warsaw Pact after there were already 14 other countries (like NATO expansion produced) in the immediate neighborhood that had already joined, do you actually think the US would have done nothing. Same with Canada and Mexico. Not to mention if there was a coup in an to overthrow a US friendly government and replace it with one that is hostile. Or if there were the incessant war games on our borders by a hostile military alliance. Stop comparing apples to elephants.
“If it was a coup it was one very odd one – the people who took power immediately started preparing for new elections – not usually seen when people without public support makes a coup. There were no NATO exercises leading up to the ousting of the Ukrainian president and there were only sanctions imposed on Russia after Putin illegally annexed Crimea and thus broke the Budapest agreement.”
Now there was no coup? No Victoria Nuland? No $5 billion? Just ignoring what obviously happened isn’t a very good argument. No coup, no war.
“So you could not name any countries that NATO has invaded because they held military exercises – and I told you why these exercises now had to go on – to prevent sending the wrong signal.”
I said the reasons were obvious as why there shouldn’t be NATO exercises. And the reason there were no NATO invasions from the past, because they held military exercises, was because there were NO CIRCUMSTANCES like there are now. When the world is on the brink of WW3 one wouldn’t have to think very hard on why there shouldn’t be any NATO exercises. And you AGREED they shouldn’t be held NOW. The only signal being sent is one of stupidity.
“No we reacted to his provocation – invading Ukraine! Pretending that the fact that we supply Ukraine with weapons when Putin has broken the Budapest agreement, and this somehow is the West provoking Putin is back to front or upside down.”
Another thing you AGREED with was that we did indeed provoke Putin but now you’re completely leaving that out along with the 30 years of previous provocations. Right back to putting the blame on Putin. And the Budapest Agreement didn’t mean Russia would sit idly by while being surrounded, poked and prodded into what they eventually did which is what the US and any major power would have done under the same circumstances.
Yes if Cuba, Mexico or Canada decided in 2021 to enter into a defense alliance with Russia the US would not invade!
Your problem being one of there not actually being a coup – as explained the legit government was ousted by a popular movement and the people who took over ASAP proceeded to hold elections – and since then elections have been elections regularly where (unlike in Russia) the incumbent has lost power each time – just about as democratic as it gets.
War games have been at the borders of NATO and the US – as in potentially nuclear armed submarines and airplanes have been at or even inside our sea and air borders regularly – we have not responded by invading any country.
No indeed there was not see:
https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/the-west-funded-the-ukrainian-coup-with-5-billion
There was a coup as but no clique taking power without popular support and holding on to power in the face of popular protests – there was a a sudden, and illegal seizure of power from a government. – which only turned violent because of the actions of the government.
Pray tell what circumstances were there from mid 2021 that justified the Russian build up for the invasion? Because I’d be hard pressed to see any circumstances present in 2021 which we have not seen the like of earlier.
But the world is not on the brink of WW3 (or do you think Putin will nuke the NATO exercises?) and to the extent it is close to WW3 it would only get closer by NATO sending Putin the wrong signal as I argued.
No it is a signal that any use of nukes will be met with consequences – and I only agreed that the timing was unfortunate, not that they should not be held!
I only agreed that we provoked Putin by applying sanctions to him breaking treaties – which you now pretend is a true provocation – I maintained that it was only a provocation if denying Russia anything at all is a provocation.
Yes that was exactly what the Budapest agreement meant – if that was not the case then the Ukrainians would hardly have agreed to hand over their nukes – it was only because Russia agreed to respect their sovereignty (that includes the sovereign choice to join e.g. NATO) and their borders.
I’m not even going to read your reply. I’ll leave you with what you said in another comment section. You’re like Jekyll and Hyde. I won’t put you on ignore but I’m done conversing with you.
“they’re doing the same thing to Taiwan as they did to Ukraine – militarizing and fortifying the whole island so as to some day inflict considerable pain and suffering not only onto the inhabitants of the island itself, but all the Chinese mainlanders who will die if and when they try to take back the island. ….”
“and all the while, the USS and its Nato lackies will stand on the sides saying how aggressive China has been and is. It’s all bullshit”
Sure.
“Putin responded to our actions.”
If I beat my wife to death because she bought the wrong fabric softener, I’m “responding to her actions.” The fact that something is a “response” tells us nothing about whether it’s good/bad, necessary/optional, etc.
The US and Russian regimes have been “responding to each others’ actions” since World War Two began to wind down.
“I am not saying the invasion was right” – usually people who say so, have no clue what happened before the invasion. From the beginning of February, Ukrainian artillery started always increasing artillery attacks against the civilian targets in Donetsk. So, about the middle of February, the number of the refugees from Donetsk region to Russia, reached many thousands per day and was always increasing. Actually, it was the beginning of the total ethnic cleansing campaign (Croatian scenario). This reason alone was, in my opinion, a good enough justification of the invasion. The other reason, which also could be a good enough justification for the invasion, was the active development of American and British military infrastructure on Ukrainian territory. Among the other things, there were several bio-labs which belonged to Pentagon. If you don’t trust Russian sources about those bio-labs, you may listen to Tucker Carlson, the video is still on YouTube.
Yes, the biolabs. A very under-reported news story. Honestly, even Antiwar.com had not that much on attacks in Donetsk. Neither Ukraine or US want news to get out. News in US never gets above partisan politics, certainly not from establishment outlets. Social media becomes more censored as time passes. Also, the proliferation of crap stories (those with unspoken political, personal, or $$ agenda) does not help either.
Thats exactly what I mean. People have one side information. The massive war crimes committed by Kiev regime against the civilians in Donbass are never reported by the corporate media.
Complete and utter nonsense. Do you really think that the mutterings of the press officers are going to hold sway with a government that has already decided it had no other options in the face of western refusals to address Russian security concerns re NATO? Try to keep up.
I’m sorry do try to keep up Josep Borrell is not a press officer:
As for whether Putin takes any notice of this threat, I could not say, I actually do not believe that Putin was/is about to use nukes – so to me this is more likely about posturing for the domestic audience.
No need to transport them so far. It is still possible to vote them out.
Don Julio:
If you want to take the time to vote something DOWN, it would be polite for you to explain why… (I can think of a myriad of reasons for you voting it down but I cannot speak for you…)
What “myriad of reasons” are there for voting down that comment? They aren’t “morons” for talking so god damn stupid? Or that nuclear war hasn’t nearly started in the past? Don just reflexively voted it down because he thinks somehow it was a pro-Russian comment.
I was speaking figuratively…
A lot of Don’s comments are reflexive recitals of stories and fantasies being spread by our compliant media.
Downvoting is for replying to thread jacking and for cowards. I go for cowards in this case.
Does anybody think that Russia will use nuclear weapons against Ukraine and then sit on their hands and do nothing if the West retaliates?
IF they start a nuclear war they will continue to use nukes against any retaliation from the West . So EU be warned. YOU ESCALATE AND THEY WILL ESCALATE TOO. Morons is too nice a word for these people.
Some people are naive to think, Russia fears their military being destroyed when nukes are flying.
When that idiot defense secretary Austin said “the goal is to weaken Russia” through this proxy war the gloves came off. It’s the US/NATO/EU that needs to be taught a lesson in becoming weak.
Then call out Russia’s escalation too. Show some objectivity.
Russia started the Nuke threats.
False. Statement of an existing documented policy is not a threat. Try to keep up.
It seems that many here think this is EU escalating, it is not, it is EU saying that if Russia escalates this war to a nuclear war then and only then the west will attack the Russians with conventional means.
That avoids it being EU or the west that uses nukes first, but as we all know it is very unlikely that the Russians will not respond to the west attacking it (even) conventionally – given that the Russians have trouble even striking Ukrainian targets with any strong result, it is overwhelming likely that the Russians would respond with nukes – so effectively WW3.
Hence what EU is saying is: ‘Do not use nukes in Ukraine unless you want to start a war with the west and therefore likely WW3’.
I’ll just say it once:
1) Putin has said that if the territorial integrity of Russia is threatened, it will use all tools and weapons available to defend itself.
2) Now the idiot Borrel says that if Russia uses some particular kind of weapon in a war he is not party to, the “EU” will hit Russia very hard … thus, threatening the territorial integrity of it, you get?
3) And therefore, the idiot Borrel is actually threatening nuclear war by his moronic statement.
The other part of this idiocy is that all Ukraine has to do is fake some kind of “nuclear attack” somehow … thus tripping the wire set up by morons like Borrel.
You can be sure that somewhere deep in the DC cesspool, providing the Kiev regime with a nuclear weapon for a false flag has been discussed.
The US and British have track records of using false attacks to justify their actions. These false flag attacks are usually preceded by the rhetoric from fools like Borrel.
All fine and well no one wants to threaten the territorial integrity of Russia – the issue at stake is the use of nukes on the territory of Ukraine (as recognized in the Budapest Memorandum – also by Russia)
No I do not attacking then Russian military, if they use nukes in Ukraine is not a threat to the territorial integrity of Russia
Not really possible as the EEU does not have nukes, Russia can threaten this, not EU.
Pretty tall order as the Ukrainians do not have nuclear weapons, more to the point why would they use them now when they are actually taking back territory?
They know better. They just need to continue calling out the West.
They conveniently forgot the last 7 months when the Kremlin was making Nuke threats. The second the West started their counter nuke rhetoric, folks here are screaming “West is making Nuke Threats.”
Once more with the bullsh*t. Say it enough times and even you will believe it. Once again saying things that you refuse to provide any kind of proof.
Don J becomes tiresome repeating western media talking points handed out by our own governments. I’ve gotten to the point of ignoring them.
He must be exhausted as clearly it seems to be a full-time job!
I blocked his asinine ass a while ago. You should try it.
I as well.
If they use nukes. Nukes. Nukes. Daily repetition . Goebels would be proud. Just repeat and repeat.
This is a dangerous time, Russia has to disable Zelenski war machinery after major sabotage to gas pipeline and bridge, but also a number attempted.
Russia is undergoing economic recovery after initial shock — according to IMF: Domestic productikn shot up, and internationslly using financial hubs such as UAE is attracting investments. Russia has one of the highest returns on investment, Higher energy prices resulted in lower sakes but higher profit that comfortably sustsins war effort.
So, the fury and the desire to “annihilate “. Rusdian army.
Fury is dangerous. Ignorant and hollow men are runninng Western governments. With a Neandertal mentality that shoukd have ebmnded in trash bim oof history long time ago, Incapable of partnering, only dominating.
This is a scary moment.
“Neandertal mentality” is created by the education and the corporate mass media. Unlikely the situation will change any soon. May be, only to the worse.
Yes, that is the darkness at the heart of it. The misnamed WW2 was actually the continuation of WW1.
What concerns the conflict between UK/France on one side and Germany/Italy on the other side, in a way, it was the continuation of WW1. However, the conflict between Stalinist Russia and Fascist Europe was a new page in the history.
I”…in a way” i.e., the cause and effect way.
But in re the war between fascists and communists you’re more right than wrong. WW1&2 were capitalist empire vs capitalist empire. The Cold War is closer to the dialectical struggle between Capitalism and Communism.
Churchill maintained that in his memoirs.
Keynes, a staffer at the Treaty of Versailles, predicted it at the time (The Consequence of the Peace) as an inevitable result of the un-survivable terms imposed on Germany. Terms, like the US sanctions on Russia, intended to strangle the economy.
It seems to have been a fairly common view, I’ve seen a contemporary political cartoon about it. Rather like the warnings about NATO encroaching into Ukraine. Part stupidity and part plan.
But we’re presently in the parallel of WW1, so the real worry comes in re the reactionary regime that succeeds in Washington after the US loses??
True. There would have been no WW2 if Wilson hadn’t intervened. And the Ukraine war wouldn’t have happened if the US hadn’t intervened.
“…sabotage to gas pipeline and bridge, but also a number attempted.”
Yes indeed, they pretend to elide fact of the Ukro-Nazis’ failed attempt to go nuclear, the special forces night raid with javelin missiles on the nuclear power plant.
“Ignorant and hollow men” is aptly put, perhaps they’re just naturally the sort that float to the top under universal democracy. Maybe a key driver is the popular fallacy of zero sum thinking, when in fact the greatest collective prosperity comes from peaceful cooperation, as the war in Ukraine is currently demonstrating.
I certainly agree with Bianca….. “Hollow men” slinging hollow threats. the weaker their position, the more their threats are inflated. When I went to bed last night ‘THEY’ were going to “annihilite” the Russian army, ” not a nuclear answer but such a powerful answer from the military side that the Russian Army will be annihilated,” he added. Are we in TOOTH FAIRY zone now….?????
” So… a frumpy neo-con lunatic Victoria Nuland picks a pan-sexual comedian Zelensky to be President of Ukraine (over the much manlier Klitschko) and a few short years later… people are seriously discussing a nuclear exchange?
Here’s a question: why are American citizens being made poorer and put at risk to back NATO expansion right up to Russia’s border, Ukraine and Georgia? Putin is not Saddam and Russia is not Iraq. You’ll be finding that out this winter.”
Good luck America!
Thanks for the well wishes MvGuy…. Where are you located?…
This war has exposed the lies of how “peace-loving” the EU is. It turns out, the majority of EU politicians are just as bellicose as their American counterparts. Disgusting.
I will say though, at least the EU parliament has a small, but vocal anti-war faction in the Left. We have no such faction in the House and the Senate, other than maybe Rand Paul, whose singular voice can sadly change nothing.
This war has exposed the lies of how “peace-loving” the EU is. It turns out, the majority of EU politicians are just as bellicose as their American counterparts. Disgusting.
I will say though, at least the EU parliament has a small, but vocal anti-war faction in the Left. We have no such faction in the House and the Senate, other than maybe Rand Paul, whose singular voice can sadly change nothing.
We’re in a schoolyard with psycho kids armed to the teeth chest-bumping and you wonder why advanced aliens dont come down to mingle? Duh
If they could annihilate Russian army, they would do it. At the moment, NATO’s attempt to annihilate Russian army would be suicidal and everyone knows it.
Yeah. I think they understand it. But this collection of sycophants, sociopaths, apparatchiks, and assorted scumbags could surprise and get us all killed.
The forces of the evil got the upper hand in The West. It doesn’t concern the geopolitics only. Watch Tucker Carlson’s video: “This should be a crime – it’s dark and horrifying.” One may call this a religion. The name of this religion is Satanism.
It is absolutely absurd for ANYONE IN NATO to say such a thing. Russia could say “Fine, you try that and we will start taking out NATO capitols one after another. Perhaps Stoltenturd would like to nominate a few to put at the top of the list? Or maybe send Brussels the list so they can follow the action. WTF!!
Another fkn!Ng idiot. Does he think that once Putin uses a nuke in Ukraine that he won’t use them in retaliation of an EU/NATO strike? Moron.
Nuclear War?… Let me pencil that in…
“‘Any nuclear attack against Ukraine will create an answer, not a nuclear answer but such a powerful answer from the military side that the Russian Army will be annihilated,'” the EU foreign policy chief declares?
Well phee-yew – thank goodness the EU/NATO has the sense not to threaten a nuclear response, ’cause that could, you know, escalate right into a full blown thermonuclear war…
Butr lemme get this straight – so if Russia starts to lose its war in Ukraine and uses a tactical nuclear weapon…the assembled thirty-odd countries of NATO unleash their collective military force “annihilating” the entire Russian army, not only in Ukraine but on Russian soil…
Yay! Nuclear crisis averted, Mister President, Sir! But scratching my head here…gee, I wonder what Russia would do as its entire army was being obliterated by massive NATO attacks on its territory? …
That would be considered to be an existential threat to the Russian state. Russian nuclear doctrine is pretty clear on that one: launch EVERYTHING. Over 6,000 nukes.
Has every adult in the room forgotten – MAD – Mutually assured destruction?
Amen Brother! And we can all kiss our asses good-bye…. (My ass is classic, along with my stunning personality and spectacular intellect.)
Once again: False. Nuclear. Flag. What else do they have left? Ukrainian forces are about to be overrun. Besides which, Borrell is basically threatening to punch someone if they shoot him. It’s ridiculous even for a government official. On the other hand, maybe it’s just an attempt to act tough and at least claim success in deterring Russian nuclear use, which wasn’t going to happen but if the US/EU can convince everyone it’s imminent they can at least posture about deterring Armageddon while they lose. Maybe that’s what they’re doing.
This on the day where: ‘Moscow calls for evacuations of occupied Kherson region‘
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/10/14/3691665744425/
Which would be a much more credible suggestion!
The title of your linked article doesn’t match the content, which actually states the regional governor is asking for Moscow’s help to evacuate a war zone. The article is mostly propaganda, my favorite part is that Ukraine’s stunning success has allowed it “to retain more than 600 towns and villages across the country”, a reference to the part that hasn’t been overrun. AP/UPI aren’t worth reading.
The point was not the headline, but that the evacuation was even being considered – not the kind of article you would expect if the Russians were about to ‘finally’ roll over the Ukrainians.
EU member states send people to Brussels for whom they don’t have any use in domestic politics. The result is a collection of the dumbest people of Europe directing European affaires in the EU Commission. What could possibly go wrong?
The EU should stay out of foreign policy. It simply has no competence in foreign policy. Borrell is like a toddler playing with nuclear war.
These lunatics are going to get us all killed. But, no worries. THEY will be in their, tax paid for, personal bunker.
Hopefully their spam has worms in it….
“Any nuclear attack against Ukraine will create an answer, not a nuclear answer but such a powerful answer from the military side that the Russian Army will be annihilated,” he added.
Why not do it right now? Isn’t Putin the next Hitler and his intentions are to reestablish the Soviet Union? Ukraine is just the start we are told. So, isn’t the annihilation of the Russian army something that needs to be done at some point? So, let’s heed this guy’s advice and see if those bastards are bluffing. What do we have to lose?
Exactly. Perhaps one of the greatest threats emerging re global warming is the hot air coming from Blinken’s buddies in Europe.
Nicely put OB.
Har! 😁
Could this be linked to the fact that Russia has quite a lot of nukes?
That didn’t seem like a concern to him otherwise I wouldn’t have made the comment I made.
Sure.
Sure to what?
Sure as in if that is what ‘you’ want to believe then I’m happy to let it rest at that – as in do not disturb your enemy when they are about to commit a mistake.
I’m going to block your comments from here on out. I didn’t come here to listen to Tony Blinken and his psychotic friends.
Wise choice, Bear.
Right. What could go wrong anyway……
“NATO” does not have any nuclear weapons. Stoltenberg does not have any nuclear weapons under his command that he can launch.
Strategic Psychobabble. Andrei Martyanov.
Hmmmm…
Andrei needs a seat at the UN.
Just exactly how does the EU imagine it would do so much damage to the Russian Army? The EU has no air forces worth the name, just a few hundred aircraft, and many are not in flying condition (almost none in Germany). They have no armies, just one division in Germany, and no full division in Britain.
The biggest non-Ukraine air force and army in NATO are Turkish. They won’t be used for this.
So they plan to have the US do it for them? Nice. But the US is not in Europe anymore. It is deployed all over the world, but no longer any in Europe itself. I suppose they could over time transfer back to fight the war threatened by the EU, but that would take time, and is not what the EU just said.
Disarmed bluster. What little they had of war stocks they already sent to Ukraine. What’s left they can’t send because it is so rusted out in storage it would need remanufacture, for which plants no longer exist.
Huff and Puff and Blow the House Down. A child’s tale.
It read well….
The EU is not a military alliance. Borrell has what kind of authority to threaten to annihilate the Russian army or anyone? Fear of the bogyman because senile uncle Joe said so to the retarded . They must be in real panic, the only explanation for such irrational talk.
No such stupid talk from Moscow. They made it clear, they will use nuclear retaliation if they get attacked with nuclear weapons, that is why they have them, for defense. Not like the USA, they insist on the right of first use, and are the only nation has ever used them, not once, no, twice and at the end of the war for no military purpose except to tell the world what they can do to them. Russia can annihilate Europe and the USA together. Someone should tell the mentally retarded Borrell to just shut up.
If the leaders are that stupid how can the manipulated public know better?
Moscow warns it will annihilate West if NATO uses nukes
What did the people who planned the 2014 coup and the subsequent events towards having Ukraine join NATO so as to place NATO (U.S.) nuclear Missiles on Russias border. Did hey think well armed Russia would just lay down and act dead. or did they think Russia would , rightly, see it as a threat to the wellbeing and survival of Russia and Russian people? Russia posses weapons that could level whole countries in NATO. They have hypersonic missiles that no missile defense system can stop and bombs with the explosive power of 200 million tons of TNT. We are talking about a very dangerous and capable foe who can level any American city with missiles NO ONE is able to stop. Why IS this risk being forced on me & my family? I demand an answer!!!
You have legitimate questions and concerns. I would also like to know some of these answers…
Is the EU immune from nuclear destruction? Nope.
ISIS and Al Queda has been fighting in Ukraine. NATO has been footing the bill. The terrorists that NATO was presumably fighting in Afghanistan and Syria etc are fighting shoulder to shoulder with NATO Nazi forces in Ukraine.
Al Queda and ISIS are contract militaries of the USA. When you need to invade and occupy a country you send in your contract army and then pretend to defend that country from your proxies.
This is getting f***ing stupid. NATO is playing a high stakes game of chicken. Here’s how a future historian can explain “the road to WWIII ”
1. USA supports regime change in Ukraine in 2014
2. Russia retaliates by annexing Crimea and breaking off Donbas from Ukraine
3. West arms Ukraine , prepares to have it join NATO
4. Russia invades Ukraine before they join NATO.
5. West imposes sanctions, arms Ukraine more
6. Russia cuts off oil to West , mobilizes army for extended war.
7. West sends offensive weapons and covert forces to Ukraine .
8 Russia calls general mobilization , pushes West
9 NATO sinks Russian black sea fleet cutting off Crimea from Russia.
10 facing loss of Crimea and access to black Sea, Russia uses tactical nukes in Western Ukraine.
11 NATO bombs Russian nuclear forces proper to prevent a nuclear strike on west.
12 Russia launches ICBMs missed on first strike
13 USA destroys Russia after millions are dead.
At each step, each belligerent thought the other side would not dare move to the next one. Yet we are already at step 7.
Unrealistic you say? Well it probably appeared unrealistic in 1914 that Gavrilo Princip’s lucky strike would start WWI.
Our leaders need to stop this game of chicken. There are millions of passengers in the back seat.
EU Warns West Will ‘Annihilate’ West If West Uses Nukes
Really??
Only the West’s panicked fools Biden and Zelensky, keep talking about using nuclear weapons. To think, a senile old men and an imbecile clown are close to the red button. That is scary.