Russia preparing for ‘Big, Colossal War’ with NATO, says Major General

Do you really think, that Castro didn't have a right to join the communistic alliance and deploy Soviet nuclear missiles? Do you think, that Soviet Union and Cuba should have make their decisions to suit Kennedy's moods back in 1962? If you want to survive - you must at least understand other people and make conversations with them.
Sweden, Finland and Lithuania are not pointing nuclear missiles at Russia today, so this is not an apt comparison. In fact, none of these countries have any nuclear weapons. If Cuba had not installed nuclear missiles aimed at the US, no one would have cared much that it had aligned itself with the USSR and Lithuania, like all nations, certainly has the right to control its border and territory even if it puts Putin in a bad mood.

The problem here is, as Putin himself has told us, is that he believes much of the Baltic region and eastern Europe properly belongs to Russia and he means to take it back.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday compared himself to the country’s first emperor, Peter the Great, in a speech marking the 350th anniversary of the figure’s birth.

Putin made the comments while visiting a multimedia exhibit about the 18th-century leader, who led a conquest of the Baltic region while at war with Sweden. Putin remarked that Peter the Great viewed the land as rightfully Russian, drawing a connection to the current war Russia is waging against Ukraine.


“He was returning it and strengthening it,” Putin said, according to The New York Times. “Well, apparently, it has also fallen to us to return and to strengthen.”

Putin also noted that when Peter founded the city of St. Petersburg, “none of the countries of Europe recognized it as Russian.”

“It’s impossible — do you understand — impossible to build a fence around a country like Russia,” Putin added.


There are no other issues.
 
Are you banned in Google?



-------------
e) armed conflict - a limited-scale armed clash between states (international armed conflict) or opposing parties within the territory of one state (internal armed conflict);

f) local war - a war between two or more states pursuing limited military-political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of opposing states and which primarily affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political, and others);

g) regional war - a war involving two or more states of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with adjacent water areas and in the air (outer) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military-political goals;

h) large-scale war - a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of states from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating states;
-----------------

It is a part of the definition.
Armed conflict - conventional weapon only, peace time army.
Local war - conventional weapon only, mobilisation.
Regional war - both conventional and nuclear weapon.
Large scale war - everything.
There is no stated Russian doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons in your post.
 
Why not? And what can you do about it? And yes, they don't call it 'blackmail', they call it 'deterrence'.
I can't do much about it. What should be done? The same what is being done now. Consolidating and expanding NATO, bringing military infrastructure on the Eastern flanc, diminishing European reliance on Russian energy exports etc.
 
There is no stated Russian doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons in your post.
It is Russian military doctrine on the official site of the Russian President. Even in the level of the definitions they define 'regional war' as nuclear one.
If you need exact condition which allow the Russians to use nuclear weapon you can read the law about nuclear detterence.




----------
19. The conditions determining the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons by the Russian Federation are:

a) receipt of reliable information about the launch of ballistic missiles attacking the territory of the Russian Federation and (or) its allies;

b) the use by the enemy of nuclear weapons or other types of weapons of mass destruction in the territories of the Russian Federation and (or) its allies;

c) the impact of the enemy on critical state or military facilities of the Russian Federation, the failure of which will lead to the disruption of retaliatory actions of nuclear forces;

d) aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened.

----------------

Technically, they already have pretty reliable information about Ukrainian launches of OTR-21 Tochka (SS-21 Scarab) against Russian territory and territory of her allies (DPR and LPR). Also, their accusations about US biological labs in Ukraine and possible chemical weapon usage have the pretty transparent goal - to legitimize their possible usage of the nuclear weapon. And, of course, any regional 'conventional' war may endanger the very existence of the Russian Federation.
 
Last edited:
What the hell does that even mean, to provoke? Do you mean to make Putin angry? Are you saying Sweden and Finland should make their decisions to suit Putin's moods? Russia has no legal right to send its goods across the sovereign state of Lithuania. Is Lithuania supposed to make its decisions to suit Putin's moods? Fuck Putin. That creepy little sociopath will just have to suck it up, maybe take a pill to help him calm down.

Yeah, not provocative at all. Not in the least
 
But the Russians didn't turn the Germans back. Hitler ordered the German army to retreat because the allies had landed in Sicily during the battle and Germany was unable to supply both the German armies in Russia and the German armies in Italy. It was the US bombing of Germany's industrial base and the allied landing in Sicily during the battle that forced the German army to retreat to protect its interests in Europe, not the Red Army. I was not the Red Army that turned the Germans back; it was the allies that saved the Red Army from utter destruction.
You are wrong on every item. I showed you this already and you are ignoring it. The Germans had to retreat because the Red Army launched a massive counter offensive which was their entire plan in the first place. The Russians knew from spies exactly where the Germans were going to strike and spent the months Hitler wasted waiting for production Panthers and Tigers to be massed establishing massive defenses in depth designed to entrap and destroy the German armored forces. The plan was to suck the Germans in, attrit them, then launch a massive counter offensive to destroy them.
 
You are wrong on every item. I showed you this already and you are ignoring it. The Germans had to retreat because the Red Army launched a massive counter offensive which was their entire plan in the first place. The Russians knew from spies exactly where the Germans were going to strike and spent the months Hitler wasted waiting for production Panthers and Tigers to be massed establishing massive defenses in depth designed to entrap and destroy the German armored forces. The plan was to suck the Germans in, attrit them, then launch a massive counter offensive to destroy them.
You are ignoring the facts, it was during the Soviet counter offensive that the Red Army suffered it greatest losses, several times the losses the Germans suffered. The Soviet counter offensive was a failure. The German army was ordered to retreat only after the allied invasion of Sicily.
 
But the Russians didn't turn the Germans back. Hitler ordered the German army to retreat because the allies had landed in Sicily during the battle and Germany was unable to supply both the German armies in Russia and the German armies in Italy. It was the US bombing of Germany's industrial base and the allied landing in Sicily during the battle that forced the German army to retreat to protect its interests in Europe, not the Red Army. I was not the Red Army that turned the Germans back; it was the allies that saved the Red Army from utter destruction.
Hitler ordered the offensive halted after almost two weeks because it was stalled and he feared the WAllies would invade Italy proper or Southern France and wanted the remaining Kursk forces to be a mobile reserve in case of additional invasions. Sicily was no threat to Germany and the Germans only had two divisions stationed there, an under-strength panzer-grenadier division and the Herman Goering Luftwaffe armored division that had all of 90 tanks on its roster. Two thirds of the defensive troops were Italians, and the defense was commanded by an Italian. The Germans didn't need more troops there and decided to evacuate what they had by the beginning of August.
 
Russia don't want that fight. They would run out of young, barely armed men to sacrifice, and would have no scumbag fdr to "bomb" them with Spam, boots, and tanks.
 
Do you really think, that Castro didn't have a right to join the communistic alliance and deploy Soviet nuclear missiles? Do you think, that Soviet Union and Cuba should have make their decisions to suit Kennedy's moods back in 1962? If you want to survive - you must at least understand other people and make conversations with them.
Castro and Khrushchev had the right to deploy Soviet missiles, but they lacked the ability to do so in the face of American disapproval. The key difference is that Castro was deploying OFFENSIVE IRBMs, not defensive SAMS. No one is deploying anything but defensive SAMs anywhere near the Russian border. Any country has the right to deploy DEFENSIVE weapons on its own territory. It even has the right to place them ONE INCH inside its border.
 
Castro and Khrushchev had the right to deploy Soviet missiles, but they lacked the ability to do so in the face of American disapproval. The key difference is that Castro was deploying OFFENSIVE IRBMs, not defensive SAMS. No one is deploying anything but defensive SAMs anywhere near the Russian border. Any country has the right to deploy DEFENSIVE weapons on its own territory. It even has the right to place them ONE INCH inside its border.
Well, except for the 30 Lugar Bioweapons Labs
 
Putin might try to go with tactical nukes to scare the hell out of everybody and force capitulation. I don’t see him winning a convention war.

The question is do we submit to nuclear blackmail or do we exchange tactical nukes?

It‘s not all that big a move from tactical nuclear war to all out nuclear war and if we reach that point it will be the end of the world as we know it. Forget global warming as we will have nuclear winter.

Hopefully some sane people in Russia will find a way to replace Putin.
We also need some sane people to replace western leaders including dumb Joe.
 
But the Russians didn't turn the Germans back. Hitler ordered the German army to retreat because the allies had landed in Sicily during the battle and Germany was unable to supply both the German armies in Russia and the German armies in Italy. It was the US bombing of Germany's industrial base and the allied landing in Sicily during the battle that forced the German army to retreat to protect its interests in Europe, not the Red Army. I was not the Red Army that turned the Germans back; it was the allies that saved the Red Army from utter destruction.
It was Alan Turing and Ultra that saved the Allies
 

Forum List

Back
Top