Russian forces “preparing to work under radioactive contamination” – Moscow(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Russian forces “preparing to work under radioactive contamination” – Moscow
https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-says-its-forces-are-preparing-work-under-radioactive-contamination-2022-10-24/
7 comments
It's hard for me to reconcile statements like these with the reports of ill-equipped forces since the beginning of this recent conflict last winter. Supposedly there were many military vehicles with inadequate tires and conscripts without appropriate cold weather gear, and many abandoned vehicles and weapons. But, now they'll be prepared to work under radioactive contamination...? Is this preparation something like that for the WWII Kamikaze pilots?
There own soldiers dug defences in one of the most radioactive places in the world earlier on in the war.
So I’d say it’s probably worth being skeptical of their claims.
So I’d say it’s probably worth being skeptical of their claims.
Yeah there's no way they would actually spend money to protect soldiers for such an unlikely threat if they wont protect them now on the front lines.
They do this kind of thing just to imply that things will escalate to nuclear war. By doing or just announcing/leaking this kind of "preparation" they can get some people in the West to think they're being super-serious about nuclear war, and thus cause them to advocate on their behalf. It's pretty effective too, we see Elon last week and today a few liberals in congress asking Ukraine to give Russia what it wants.
They do this kind of thing just to imply that things will escalate to nuclear war. By doing or just announcing/leaking this kind of "preparation" they can get some people in the West to think they're being super-serious about nuclear war, and thus cause them to advocate on their behalf. It's pretty effective too, we see Elon last week and today a few liberals in congress asking Ukraine to give Russia what it wants.
Even limited use of nukes would be horrible. There will be so much more suffering if the breadbasket of Europe is reduced to an irradiated hellhole thanks to Putin’s delusions of grandeur.
they wouldn't reduce it to irradiated rubble, they would just use small yield nukes on certain cities to force capitulation.
they need ukraine to be usable for annexation so expect at most kyiv and maybe 1 or 2 other cities to be lightly irradiated.
like after a few months it would be cleaned up.
the real damage is to the people who would be in the areas, they could have generational dna damage.
they need ukraine to be usable for annexation so expect at most kyiv and maybe 1 or 2 other cities to be lightly irradiated.
like after a few months it would be cleaned up.
the real damage is to the people who would be in the areas, they could have generational dna damage.
There's high chance that - if WMD is used in Ukraine - Russia will be hit hard - maybe first with conventional weapons, but if it will use nuclear weapons then, Russia will not be spared.
Irradiated rubble anyway.
Irradiated rubble anyway.
But first by the wind direction, which goes directly to the east.
Contaminating the Ukraine will equally contaminate Russia. Moscow will not care, because Moscow will not be affected. But they are already preparing for the outrage of such stupidity.
Contaminating the Ukraine will equally contaminate Russia. Moscow will not care, because Moscow will not be affected. But they are already preparing for the outrage of such stupidity.
> they would just use small yield nukes on certain cities to force capitulation
The use of small yield tactical weapons would almost certainly escalate to full blown nuclear exchanges, it's a pandoras box that won't be closed.
The use of small yield tactical weapons would almost certainly escalate to full blown nuclear exchanges, it's a pandoras box that won't be closed.
MOABs have about the same destructive force as a tactical nuke. I expect they’d be used in response. And if the Rods from God were ever put into orbit, those as well. The Kremlin, government offices, factories, refineries, and oligarch estates can be obliterated without resorting to nuclear escalation.
Small yield is Hiroshima level destruction.
We know how Russia operates.
They are going to use nukes unless Putin disappears.
They are going to use nukes unless Putin disappears.
Yes, we do know how Russia operates - it has always been Russia's stated position that they won't hesitate to use nuclear weapons as first strike weapon if they have a direct conflict with any military powerful country or the NATO or the US. Thankfully, Russia is not a failed state and has a stable political system, with good political leadership, fully in control of its military. It is very unlikely that nuclear weapons will be used against Ukraine in any manner, unless more countries ally with Ukraine against Russia and their military actually participate in the war.
> Thankfully, Russia is not a failed state and has a stable political system
I assume you're joking, since this is not true, and obviously so. Where to start? Not having monopoly on use of force, as evidenced by actions of e.g. Chechen head?
I assume you're joking, since this is not true, and obviously so. Where to start? Not having monopoly on use of force, as evidenced by actions of e.g. Chechen head?
Depends on the context you bring up "failed state" - I was talking from the view of a political system and leadership fully in control of all the institutions of governance. (For example, Pakistan is a failed state from that perspective as the Pakistan government lacks control over the military and the intelligence services, due to which Pakistan has often been under military rule).
It is definitely to Putin's credit that Russia has enjoyed political stability and unity for the last 2 decades, despite the lack of credible economic growth.
It is definitely to Putin's credit that Russia has enjoyed political stability and unity for the last 2 decades, despite the lack of credible economic growth.
>it has always been Russia's stated position that they won't hesitate to use nuclear weapons as first strike weapon...
Other commenters have hinted at Russia staging a false flag 'dirty bomb' incident, to justify making a nuclear response. That's an alarming thought. But I think it's equally alarming to see how we're being manipulated by the media into accepting some kind of limited nuclear conflict as inevitable and being pre-programmed to accept the "He hit me first!" jutification --especially as [see my other posts on what Putin actually did and didn't say] it seems like the Russian people are being similarly prepared for similar justification.
"No first strike" might refer to "big guns", ICBMs. It is well known that Russia also as a doctrine of "escalate to deescalate" where they reserve right to use small, tactical nukes if they start loosing conventional war, and the territorial integrity of Russia is at stake. I guess they realized that their conventional armed forces are shit, and wanted an ace up their sleeve.
https://globalsecurityreview.com/nuclear-de-escalation-russi...
https://globalsecurityreview.com/nuclear-de-escalation-russi...
As per Russian nuclear doctrine, if Russia is attacked, if it faces an existential threat, it reserves the right to use ... first use nuclear weapons.
> Nope. Again this is the direct opposite of the truth. Russia has a stated "No First Strike" policy.
My statement is based on what a high ranking indian military official (who has directly trained with Russian strategic forces) has publicly said on this matter - https://youtu.be/pNHUDDqTgdI?t=515 (see at 8m:34s).
My statement is based on what a high ranking indian military official (who has directly trained with Russian strategic forces) has publicly said on this matter - https://youtu.be/pNHUDDqTgdI?t=515 (see at 8m:34s).
Also came across this in an article from BBC ( https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63414324 ):
"There is a risk of Russia using nuclear weapons. Not against Ukraine, but against the West," said Dmitry Suslov, a member of Russia's Council on Foreign and Defence Policy. "If a single American missile hits Russian military infrastructure inside Russia, we would make an historic jump towards nuclear Armageddon. According to official Russian nuclear doctrine, Russia would launch a strategic nuclear strike against the US and all Nato countries as soon as we witness the launch of Western missiles against our territory, no matter how they are armed. Then the whole planet will die."
"There is a risk of Russia using nuclear weapons. Not against Ukraine, but against the West," said Dmitry Suslov, a member of Russia's Council on Foreign and Defence Policy. "If a single American missile hits Russian military infrastructure inside Russia, we would make an historic jump towards nuclear Armageddon. According to official Russian nuclear doctrine, Russia would launch a strategic nuclear strike against the US and all Nato countries as soon as we witness the launch of Western missiles against our territory, no matter how they are armed. Then the whole planet will die."
Putin is a moderate compared to many Russians.
He goes and something worse comes.
It all feels inveitable.
Not sure why you are being downvoted. Julia Ioffe said that Putin is the "moderating force" in his inner circle.
I think people have so much rage against Putin (understandably) that they want all facts to point to Putin being the sole problem and fantasize about his death and it solving the current situation. It is unfortunately not so simple.
I think people have so much rage against Putin (understandably) that they want all facts to point to Putin being the sole problem and fantasize about his death and it solving the current situation. It is unfortunately not so simple.
Putin's death will solve problems, true. And it will happen almost inevitably. That doesn't mean things will NOT become worse before becoming better.
Yes, for example Alexei Navalny. It is funny how West sees him as "opposition leader" (just because Putin tried to poison him), while the whole reason he opposes Putin is he thinks Putin is not radical and nationalist enough.
It goes back further than that. He was widely seen as the most viable opposition candidate in the 2018 presidential election, before being banned from running on trumped up charges.
https://www.economist.com/europe/2017/06/17/aleksei-navalnys...
I don't know much about his political views; Wikipedia confirms that he does advocate nationalism and controlled immigration, but also supports legalising same-sex marriage, and opposed the annexation of Crimea and Russian interventions in Syria. He certainly comes across as less hawkish than Putin based on that.
https://www.economist.com/europe/2017/06/17/aleksei-navalnys...
I don't know much about his political views; Wikipedia confirms that he does advocate nationalism and controlled immigration, but also supports legalising same-sex marriage, and opposed the annexation of Crimea and Russian interventions in Syria. He certainly comes across as less hawkish than Putin based on that.
>After weeks of rising international tension following threats by President Vladimir Putin to defend Russia's "territorial integrity" with nuclear weapons...
What do you mean he never said it? Here he is saying it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8gZUQMqDAI
Yes. I've seen that before. Here's the transcript of what he said:
мы сделаем все чтобы обеспечить безопасные условия для проведения референдумов для того чтобы люди могли выразить свою волю это решение о своем будущем которое примет большинство жителей Донецкой и Луганской народных республик Запорожской и Херсонской областей мы поддержим в своей агрессивной антироссийской политики Запад перешел всякую грань мы постоянно слышим угрозы в адрес нашей страны нашего народа некоторые безответственные политики на западе не только говорят о планах по организации поставок Украине дальнобойных наступательных вооружений систем которые позволят наносить удары по Крыму другим регионам России такие террористические удары в том числе с использованием западного оружия уже наносится по приграничным населенным пунктам Белгородской Курской областей вход пошел и ядерный Шантаж речь идет Не только о поощряемых западом обстрелах Запорожской атомной электростанции Что грозит атомная катастрофы высказывание некоторых высокопоставленных представителей ведущих государств НАТО возможностей и допустимости применения против России оружия массового поражения ядерного оружия тем кто позволяет себе такие заявления в отношении России хочу напомнить что наша страна также располагает различными средствами поражения А по отдельным компонентам и более современными чем у стран НАТО и при угрозе территориальной целостности нашей страны для защиты России и нашего народа мы безусловно используем все имеющиеся в нашем распоряжении средства это не Блеф А те кто пытаются шантажировать нас ядерным должны знать что Роза ветров может развернуться и
And a Google-translation:
we will do everything to ensure safe conditions for holding referendums so that people can express their will this decision about their future, which will be made by the majority of residents of the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics of Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, we will support in its aggressive anti-Russian policy, the West has crossed every line, we constantly hear threats against our country, our people, some irresponsible politicians in the West not only talk about plans to organize the supply of long-range offensive weapons to Ukraine that will allow strikes on Crimea to other regions of Russia, such terrorist strikes, including with the use of Western weapons, are already inflicted on border settlements Belgorod Kursk region has entered and nuclear Blackmail is not only about the shelling of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant encouraged by the West What threatens a nuclear catastrophe is the statement of some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO states of the possibilities and admissibility of the use of weapons of mass destruction of nuclear weapons against Russia by those who allow themselves such statements regarding Russia, I want to remind you that our country also has various means of destruction A for individual components and more modern than those of NATO countries and with a threat to the territorial integrity of our country to protect Russia and our people, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal, this is not a bluff, and those who are trying to blackmail us with a nuclear weapon should know that the prevailing winds can blow in their direction.
Perhaps you can show me where he made "threats ... to defend Russia's "territorial integrity" with nuclear weapons"? Because the only time he mmentions nuclear weapons by name, he's referring to threars from NATO to use them on Russia and saying he'll respond in kind if this happens. Exactly the same response any other country would make; "If you nuke us, we'll nuke you back". Do you think the US or any other NATO country would say any different?
How on earth does this get mutated into 'Putin threatened to use nuclear weapons'? It's the same kind of doublethink which mutates 'We're not going to buy your gas any more' into 'Russia turned off the taps'.
You don't have to be an apologist for what Russia has done to Ukraine [and I'm not!] to be alarmed at how public opinion is being manipulated here. It's just depressing that it's even working on the HN audience which I always assumed to be a bit less gullible and a bit more questioning. God only knows what crap people who get their news from the tabloid press are being spoon-fed here!
мы сделаем все чтобы обеспечить безопасные условия для проведения референдумов для того чтобы люди могли выразить свою волю это решение о своем будущем которое примет большинство жителей Донецкой и Луганской народных республик Запорожской и Херсонской областей мы поддержим в своей агрессивной антироссийской политики Запад перешел всякую грань мы постоянно слышим угрозы в адрес нашей страны нашего народа некоторые безответственные политики на западе не только говорят о планах по организации поставок Украине дальнобойных наступательных вооружений систем которые позволят наносить удары по Крыму другим регионам России такие террористические удары в том числе с использованием западного оружия уже наносится по приграничным населенным пунктам Белгородской Курской областей вход пошел и ядерный Шантаж речь идет Не только о поощряемых западом обстрелах Запорожской атомной электростанции Что грозит атомная катастрофы высказывание некоторых высокопоставленных представителей ведущих государств НАТО возможностей и допустимости применения против России оружия массового поражения ядерного оружия тем кто позволяет себе такие заявления в отношении России хочу напомнить что наша страна также располагает различными средствами поражения А по отдельным компонентам и более современными чем у стран НАТО и при угрозе территориальной целостности нашей страны для защиты России и нашего народа мы безусловно используем все имеющиеся в нашем распоряжении средства это не Блеф А те кто пытаются шантажировать нас ядерным должны знать что Роза ветров может развернуться и
And a Google-translation:
we will do everything to ensure safe conditions for holding referendums so that people can express their will this decision about their future, which will be made by the majority of residents of the Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics of Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, we will support in its aggressive anti-Russian policy, the West has crossed every line, we constantly hear threats against our country, our people, some irresponsible politicians in the West not only talk about plans to organize the supply of long-range offensive weapons to Ukraine that will allow strikes on Crimea to other regions of Russia, such terrorist strikes, including with the use of Western weapons, are already inflicted on border settlements Belgorod Kursk region has entered and nuclear Blackmail is not only about the shelling of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant encouraged by the West What threatens a nuclear catastrophe is the statement of some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO states of the possibilities and admissibility of the use of weapons of mass destruction of nuclear weapons against Russia by those who allow themselves such statements regarding Russia, I want to remind you that our country also has various means of destruction A for individual components and more modern than those of NATO countries and with a threat to the territorial integrity of our country to protect Russia and our people, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal, this is not a bluff, and those who are trying to blackmail us with a nuclear weapon should know that the prevailing winds can blow in their direction.
Perhaps you can show me where he made "threats ... to defend Russia's "territorial integrity" with nuclear weapons"? Because the only time he mmentions nuclear weapons by name, he's referring to threars from NATO to use them on Russia and saying he'll respond in kind if this happens. Exactly the same response any other country would make; "If you nuke us, we'll nuke you back". Do you think the US or any other NATO country would say any different?
How on earth does this get mutated into 'Putin threatened to use nuclear weapons'? It's the same kind of doublethink which mutates 'We're not going to buy your gas any more' into 'Russia turned off the taps'.
You don't have to be an apologist for what Russia has done to Ukraine [and I'm not!] to be alarmed at how public opinion is being manipulated here. It's just depressing that it's even working on the HN audience which I always assumed to be a bit less gullible and a bit more questioning. God only knows what crap people who get their news from the tabloid press are being spoon-fed here!
[deleted]
Right here, in your own translation: "...I want to remind you that our country also has various means of destruction A for individual components and more modern than those of NATO countries and with a threat to the territorial integrity of our country to protect Russia and our people, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal, this is not a bluff..."
Hard to read that as anything other than a threat to use nukes. What else could he be talking about there?
Hard to read that as anything other than a threat to use nukes. What else could he be talking about there?
You're missing my point. Various news sources are reporting that Putin "threatened to use nuclear weapons" with the patently obvious suggestion that he was threatening a first strike and explicitly said that he would use nuclear weapons in that. Now I'm not disputing the inference that can be drawn from what he said. That's obvious. What I'm trying to point out is that this 'inference' we're all drawing is now being reported repeatedly as an actual statement he made. Which is completely untrue.
It's like if I said "adam has threatened to kick me in the bollocks. Well, if he does so, he should remember I have steel toe-capped boots too!" and the press all reported that as "Normille threatens to kick adam in the bollocks".
It ignores both the fact that I actually said I'd only retaliate if adam kicked me in the bollocks first AND the fact that I didn't actually say I would kick adam in the bollocks, but just reminded him that he wasn't the only one wearing big boots.
It may sound pedantic. But reporting what you inferred from what someone said as a direct quote attributed to that person is not honest journalism.
It's like if I said "adam has threatened to kick me in the bollocks. Well, if he does so, he should remember I have steel toe-capped boots too!" and the press all reported that as "Normille threatens to kick adam in the bollocks".
It ignores both the fact that I actually said I'd only retaliate if adam kicked me in the bollocks first AND the fact that I didn't actually say I would kick adam in the bollocks, but just reminded him that he wasn't the only one wearing big boots.
It may sound pedantic. But reporting what you inferred from what someone said as a direct quote attributed to that person is not honest journalism.
You are in the wrong here. Putin did threaten to use nuclear weapon when he said “we will certainly use all the means at our disposal, this is not a bluff”. There is no misleading there. He tried to justify it by saying that’d be in response to some threat to Russia. We all know Nazi has been the justification for his invasion of Ukraine, no matter how ridiculous it is. Do you think he wouldn’t fabricate another threat to justify his use of nuclear weapon?
As for reporting it as threaten to use nuclear weapon as “first strike”, I haven’t seen any news that specifically mentioned “first strike”. Care to give an example?
As for reporting it as threaten to use nuclear weapon as “first strike”, I haven’t seen any news that specifically mentioned “first strike”. Care to give an example?
>Putin did threaten to use nuclear weapon when he said “we will certainly use all the means at our disposal, this is not a bluff”.
>I haven’t seen any news that specifically mentioned “first strike”. Care to give an example?
In the first quote above you're telling me Putin did threaten to use nuclear weapons, even though he didn't say those actual words
In the second quote you're asking me to prove my 'inference' by showing you where those actual words were used.
So you want it both ways? We can infer what Putin meant and report that as direct quote. But when reporting statements from 'our side' we must stick to the actual words used?
If you can't see the inconsistency there, there's no point even debating this further.
Because context matters. Russia sees the annexed parts as part of Russia:
> that will allow strikes on Crimea to other regions of Russia
They are also saying:
> and nuclear Blackmail is not only about the shelling of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant encouraged by the West What threatens a nuclear catastrophe
They blame NATO and Ukraine for actions, which are Russia's doing. This is Russia's playbook. Accuse the other party of what you are doing, so that your actions are legitimate, it's Russia's version of "why are you hitting yourself". This whole statement boils down to "We could use nuclear weapons if we don't stop doing what we blame the other side for". Which is the same as threatening nuclear weapons outright.
The theme of the day is, that Ukraine is preparing a dirty bomb. Which should give everyone pause, as to how far Russia might actually go.
> that will allow strikes on Crimea to other regions of Russia
They are also saying:
> and nuclear Blackmail is not only about the shelling of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant encouraged by the West What threatens a nuclear catastrophe
They blame NATO and Ukraine for actions, which are Russia's doing. This is Russia's playbook. Accuse the other party of what you are doing, so that your actions are legitimate, it's Russia's version of "why are you hitting yourself". This whole statement boils down to "We could use nuclear weapons if we don't stop doing what we blame the other side for". Which is the same as threatening nuclear weapons outright.
The theme of the day is, that Ukraine is preparing a dirty bomb. Which should give everyone pause, as to how far Russia might actually go.
> Perhaps you can show me where he made "threats ... to defend Russia's "territorial integrity" with nuclear weapons"?
Here -
тем кто позволяет себе такие заявления в отношении России хочу напомнить что наша страна также располагает различными средствами поражения
admissibility of the use of weapons of mass destruction of nuclear weapons against Russia by those who allow themselves such statements regarding Russia, I want to remind you that our country also has various means of destruction
This is direct threat, very serious from the person in Putin's position.
Here -
тем кто позволяет себе такие заявления в отношении России хочу напомнить что наша страна также располагает различными средствами поражения
admissibility of the use of weapons of mass destruction of nuclear weapons against Russia by those who allow themselves such statements regarding Russia, I want to remind you that our country also has various means of destruction
This is direct threat, very serious from the person in Putin's position.
Again, you're making the same [deliberate?] error everyone else is making. He's threatening he'll RETALIATE accordingly if the West/NATO uses nuclear weapons against Russia. This is EXACTLY the same stated "No first Strike" policy as every single NATO member has.
So why are we not seeing reports that "USA threatens to use nuclear weapons against China"? Because I bet if you, if asked, the US would make EXACTLY the same 'threats'.
So why are we not seeing reports that "USA threatens to use nuclear weapons against China"? Because I bet if you, if asked, the US would make EXACTLY the same 'threats'.
No, you just don't understand him. Putin and his guys threaten whatever, and will do whatever they think they can get away with.
Again, you're in dangerous delusion that Putin doesn't evaluate first strikes.
I don't think China is relevant here.
Again, you're in dangerous delusion that Putin doesn't evaluate first strikes.
I don't think China is relevant here.
Again you're [deliberately?] misunderstanding me. I'm not arguing about whether or not Putin will use nuclear weapons, or whether or not he would launch a first strike. My argument is entirely about the fact that the media is reporting that he "threatened to use nuclear weapons" as a direct quote, when he didn't utter those actual words.
Whether he will or not, isn't the issue here.
I said elsewhere in this thread how surprised I was that even HN's supposedly above average intelligence readership was failing to spot these manipulations. Your reply kind of proves the point.
Somehow my pointing out that "The media has quoted Putin as saying X when he didn't actually say those words" has mutated into "Normille doesn't believe Putin will do X"
It's this distinction really so difficult for people to grasp?
Whether he will or not, isn't the issue here.
I said elsewhere in this thread how surprised I was that even HN's supposedly above average intelligence readership was failing to spot these manipulations. Your reply kind of proves the point.
Somehow my pointing out that "The media has quoted Putin as saying X when he didn't actually say those words" has mutated into "Normille doesn't believe Putin will do X"
It's this distinction really so difficult for people to grasp?
> My argument is entirely about the fact that the media is reporting that he "threatened to use nuclear weapons" as a direct quote, when he didn't utter those actual words.
Can you please stop being obtuse? You don't get direct incriminating words - you have to understand the meaning, and the intent of the words, and judge by them.
I'm surprised you're failing to see this.
Can you please stop being obtuse? You don't get direct incriminating words - you have to understand the meaning, and the intent of the words, and judge by them.
I'm surprised you're failing to see this.
My god, it's really happening.
A nuclear war is right around the corner.
Ok, so according to anecdotal evidence Russian families are borrowing money to buy their sons (husbands) uniforms, shoes, vests, rucksacks and other equipment and now I hear this? It sounds like they will get shovels, so they don't need to dig through irradiated soil with bare hands...
Ukrainian blowing up a "dirty bomb" inside their territory and blaming it on Russia to give NATO / EU / US a pretext to get more involved in the war is quite a possibility (and would be a good strategy too). After all, let's not forget that Ukraine has shit politicians like the Russian ones, and that is why they are in the mess they are today.
Ok Dmitri Shepilov