I don’t think the BBC does a good enough job of connecting the dots here. This position only makes sense if you believe either:
- that Europe is going to use this as a jumping-off point to invade Russia or her allies; or
- that Ukraine is not a sovereign country.
1 is not credible given that Europe has been a pretty peaceful neighbour for 80 years, whereas Russia has invaded a bunch of countries.
So this really demonstrates Putin’s belief that Ukraine should not have control over her own territory, that Ukraine can have some autonomy but at the end of the day needs to submit to Russia’s will. Russia doesn’t want to admit this to the West because it harms Russia’s credibility, so this little argument really deserves to be made clearer.
Try it motherfucker
Ok and?
No country should give up their nukes. Ever.
The US should not have a monopoly on nukes nor the Russians.
Yeah, Vlad, go do it. Shoot at Western troops. See how that goes for you.
you’re not supposed to be there in the first place! it’s NOT your country!
How about we make you a target, Vladdy? See how you like it?
I’d love it, if we decided to test some kind of ICCBM missile with a “tactical kinetic warhead” (like a small rods from god type situation here,) and then we’re just, like, “ooops sorry for dropping that giant murican dick on your kremlin. There was a guidance error and it reverted back to its original computer. So sorry.”
If we’re lucky he’d even be home, but the asshole is probably somewhere in hiding. Wouldn’t want the drones to find them.
The problem of course is that it’s impossible for the target country to tell what flavor (kinetic, conventional, tactical nuke, strategic nuke) the warhead is until it impacts. And thus standard strategic ICBM doctrine for anyone who has ICBMs and/or SLBMs is “assume it’s the biggest nuke”, which of course triggers second-strike doctrine (“you launched on me, so I’m going to fucking glass your whole country”).
