The article refers very specifically to a situation I. 2022.
If you think I’m trolling , find me the communication, speech or transcript, from 2022, where putin said he was going to use nukes in Ukraine
It’s needs to be prime source, please. Not An article saying “Putin said”.
you won’t find it , because jt doesn’t exist.
You will instead be confronted with the fact that somewhere along the way, you have lost the ability determine what is a real piece of journalism, and what is click bait, for dead heads.
Edit : and if you are paying attention, I’ve made no comment on the war itself . Only the quality of the articl. So my best advice, is take a deep breath and d carefully consider the words you read, before formulating an opinion and writing a reply.
September 21, 2022 … In an address to Russians Putin announced he would call up 300,000 reservists to fight in Ukraine and backed a plan to annex parts of the country, hinting to the West he was prepared to use nuclear weapons to defend Russia. “If the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will use all available means to protect our people - this is not a bluff,” Putin said.
“I would like to remind those who make such statements about Russia that our country also possesses various means of destruction, and in some cases they are more modern than those of NATO countries. When the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we, of course, will use all the means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people. This is not a bluff. And those who try to blackmail us with nuclear weapons should know that the weathervane can turn and point towards them.”
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
No nuclear threat, unless attacked with nuclear weapons.
No. Their official position is this:
According to a Russian military doctrine stated in 2010, nuclear weapons could be used by Russia “in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened”. Most military analysts believe that, in this case, Russia would pursue an ‘escalate to de-escalate’ strategy, initiating limited nuclear exchange to bring adversaries to the negotiating table. Russia will also threaten nuclear conflict to discourage initial escalation of any major conventional conflict.
They annexed Eastern Ukraine, said it was part of Russia, then threatened “all means at our disposal” if anyone threatened Russia’s territorial integrity. Russia including Eastern Ukraine (and Crimea). Ie. if Ukraine made too many gains in Eastern Ukraine, they were threatening a nuclear strike.
This isn’t a secret. As mentioned above, it’s been official doctrine for years now and they keep making these threats. Wikipedia has a summary of some of them:
Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, said that some Ukrainian military commanders were considering hitting missile launch sites inside Russia with Western-supplied long-range missiles. He did not name the commanders or disclose more details of the alleged plan and there was no immediate reaction from Ukraine to his threat. “What does this mean? It means only one thing – they risk running into the action of paragraph 19 of the fundamentals of Russia’s state policy in the field of nuclear deterrence,” Medvedev wrote on the Telegram messaging app. “This should be remembered,” Medvedev said. Paragraph nineteen of Russia’s 2020 nuclear doctrine sets out the conditions under which a Russian president would consider using a nuclear weapon: broadly as a response to an attack using nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction,or to the use of conventional weapons against Russia “when the very existence of the state is put under threat.” Medvedev made specific mention of point “g” of paragraph nineteen which deals with the nuclear response to a conventional weapons attack.
I think you just have a hard time comprending what a threat to do something is.
Threats are not often direct statements if intent. Other things like moving nuclear weapons closer to the front is a form of threats. Or saying you will use nukes to defend your territory then shortly passing a law which claims the land you invaded as your territory.
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
What do you want me to do ? You’ve completely strawmanned it. You wanna argue about what can be interpreted as a threat, go ahead, but you’ll need to find someone interested.
I’ve shown that this is a garbage article, that’s not original work but instead written about another article, which itself was based on a non specific threat. Which is the only claim I ever made.
On the other hand, You’ve shown you’ll buy anything you read on the internet, and that you prefer to argue with people rather than do any thinking - and I’m afraid that’s not my problem.
The article refers very specifically to a situation I. 2022.
If you think I’m trolling , find me the communication, speech or transcript, from 2022, where putin said he was going to use nukes in Ukraine
It’s needs to be prime source, please. Not An article saying “Putin said”.
you won’t find it , because jt doesn’t exist.
You will instead be confronted with the fact that somewhere along the way, you have lost the ability determine what is a real piece of journalism, and what is click bait, for dead heads.
Edit : and if you are paying attention, I’ve made no comment on the war itself . Only the quality of the articl. So my best advice, is take a deep breath and d carefully consider the words you read, before formulating an opinion and writing a reply.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-nato-chief-says-putins-ukraine-escalation-dangerous-reckless-2022-09-21/
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-president-vladimir-putin-announces-partial-mobilisation-2022-09-21/
And video:
https://youtu.be/e8gZUQMqDAI?t=91
Removed, racism against Russians is still racism.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
/s
It’s sad that you have to add the /s
No good mate . No nuclear threat, unless attacked with nuclear weapons. This is literally everyone stance on nukes - apart from maybe the Norks .
‘We will use any means necessary to defend our people …blah blah’. Is the most generic war time rhetoric going.
Read it without bias.
No. Their official position is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Nuclear_weapons_in_Russian_military_doctrine
They annexed Eastern Ukraine, said it was part of Russia, then threatened “all means at our disposal” if anyone threatened Russia’s territorial integrity. Russia including Eastern Ukraine (and Crimea). Ie. if Ukraine made too many gains in Eastern Ukraine, they were threatening a nuclear strike.
This isn’t a secret. As mentioned above, it’s been official doctrine for years now and they keep making these threats. Wikipedia has a summary of some of them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_risk_during_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
For example:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-medvedev-warns-nuclear-response-if-ukraine-hits-missile-launch-sites-2024-01-11/
These are widely understood as nuclear threats in Russian media and by Russian audiences.
I think you just have a hard time comprending what a threat to do something is.
Threats are not often direct statements if intent. Other things like moving nuclear weapons closer to the front is a form of threats. Or saying you will use nukes to defend your territory then shortly passing a law which claims the land you invaded as your territory.
Removed, Civility:
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Lol it what world is my comment above a personal attack or being uncivil.
But them gaslighting everyone on the forums about Russian nuclear threats being fake news isn’t smh.
I was debating putting a /s on there, I guess I should’ve oops
I 100% agree with you, I was making fun of that one account copying and pasting rules in reply to comments calling out that kind of mis/disinformation
Hey buddy, bring the those goalposts back over here.
Okay completely unsubstantial reply. English must not be your first language if you don’t consider those clear examples of a threat.
русский бот
What do you want me to do ? You’ve completely strawmanned it. You wanna argue about what can be interpreted as a threat, go ahead, but you’ll need to find someone interested.
I’ve shown that this is a garbage article, that’s not original work but instead written about another article, which itself was based on a non specific threat. Which is the only claim I ever made.
On the other hand, You’ve shown you’ll buy anything you read on the internet, and that you prefer to argue with people rather than do any thinking - and I’m afraid that’s not my problem.