US Nuclear Weapons in Europe?

[Donald H]

October 2022:
Poland negotiates with the U.S. on the joint use of U.S. nuclear weapons on its territory.

Five months have passed:
Poland condemns Putin's plans to deploy nuclear weapons in Belarus because it is a threat to peace in Europe

America is and has been offered peace in Europe.

But America is still refusing to accept that Putin and his people are resolute that they will not allow their country to be broken apart.

Peace for the Ukraine is as simple as America giving up its goal of destroying Russia as a large and intact superpower.

DYK: Sanctions against Russia are being applied by 15% of the world's population by their countries.

85% of the world could become aligned with China, Russia, and the Brics.

 

[Donald H]

Yes, there are US nukes in Europe.

That's no excuse for Russia to have nukes in Europe Dook!

 

[Ringo]

That's no excuse for Russia to have nukes in Europe Dook!

Why? Because it is "completely different!"?

 

[zaangalewa]

No, there aren't. The INF, which would have applied to moving nukes to Belarus, ended in 2019

It did not "end" - what sounds as if there had not been any other way. Donald Trump ended the INF-treaty - without to speak with any ally of the USA in Europe as far as I know. As a reaction Vladimir Putin made clear that in case an intermediate range nuke will fly from Europe direction Russia then he will start intercontinental nukes and will wipe out the USA.

and since Putin just suspended Russia's participation in Start 2, there are no other agreements in effect.

 

[Silver Cat]

That's no excuse for Russia to have nukes in Europe Dook!

It is not about "excuses". It's about the reasons.

And the reason is quite simple. They want to have an ability to fight and win a limited nuclear war in Europe or, at least, eliminate most important military targets in the Eastern Europe by the first strike.

 

[Richard-H]

It is not about "excuses". It's about the reasons.
View attachment 770927


And the reason is quite simple. They want to have an ability to fight and win a limited nuclear war in Europe or, at least, eliminate most important military targets in the Eastern Europe by the first strike.

Your diagram excludes the current missile ranges for missiles based in Russia. Do you really think that if missiles were launched from Belarus or Kaliningrad, NATO would not consider it an attack from Russia?

If you included the missile ranges of missiles based in Russia, there would be no significant gain by having missiles based in Belarus.

Apparently Putin is trying to convince Lukashenko that locating missiles in Belarus would protect Belarus from a NATO attack - which is extremely unlikely unless Belarus allows itself from being drawn into a conflict with NATO. NATO is a defensive alliance only - there is absolutely no protocol for NATO to launch offensive operations unless it is attacked - it simply can't happen.

What Putin really wants is to use Belarus to launch another attack against Kyiv - thereby drawing Ukrainian forces out of Eastern Ukraine to defend Kyiv, and eliminating the possibility of a Ukrainian offensive in eastern Ukraine.

Lukashenko would have to be a fool to allow this to happen. Last time Putin tried to get Belarus to send it's army into Ukraine. No doubt Putin would try that again. This time he'd demand it.

If Belarus' army (38,000 total) were sent to Ukraine, Lukashenko would not have the security forces needed to prevent a revolution in Belarus. Russian forces would have to suppress the revolution and impose martial law in Belarus. Effectively, this would mean a full occupation of Belarus by the Russian army, and the defacto annexation of Belarus by Russia.

I doubt Lukashenko is that stupid. If he were smart he'd declare neutrality and kick all Russian forces out of Belarus. So far Russia has made every mistake possible, and has been losing this war at every turn. Russia is not a horse that would be wise to bet on.

 

[Silver Cat]

Your diagram excludes the current missile ranges for missiles based in Russia. Do you really think that if missiles were launched from Belarus or Kaliningrad, NATO would not consider it an attack from Russia?

If you included the missile ranges of missiles based in Russia, there would be no significant gain by having missiles based in Belarus.

The question is not only about the missile ranges. There is a question about flight time of those missiles. It's not about what NATO will consider. It's all about what NATO will be able to do (after the Russian limited counterforce attack).
And then there will be choice for the USA:
a) accept new reality, make peace with Russia and lost NATO;
b) commit murder-suicide and lost both the USA and NATO.

What exactly will choose Biden's clique?

 

[Kruska]

If you included the missile ranges of missiles based in Russia, there would be no significant gain by having missiles based in Belarus.

I don't agree with your statement or rather conclusion
Belarus conventional forces are far too small and weak to go into action against Ukraine. It would be suicidal for Lukashenko to launch such an attack.

Russian short and mid-range missiles based in Belarus are covering more or less the entire Ukraine - is NATO going to attack/nuke Belarus? if Russia decides to use it's nukes from Belarusian territory e.g. against Ukraine? This situation has created a whole new dimension in regards to international law.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I don't agree with your statement or rather conclusion
Belarus conventional forces are far too small and weak to go into action against Ukraine. It would be suicidal for Lukashenko to launch such an attack.

Russian short and mid-range missiles based in Belarus are covering more or less the entire Ukraine - is NATO going to attack/nuke Belarus? if Russia decides to use it's nukes from Belarusian territory e.g. against Ukraine? This situation has created a whole new dimension in regards to international law.

There is nothing else quite as bizarre as seeing a Putinhead talk about international law. There is no new dimension to international law. That idea is so stupid you would probably qualify to become a Russian general. They are Russian missiles and if they are fired, the decision will be made in the Kremlin, so obviously the retaliation if there is any would be against Russia.

However, we all know these nuclear gestures are intended to try to intimidate the West because it is apparent Russia cannot prevail on the battlefield and the Russian economy cannot support this level of conflict for very much longer, and Russia will fall further and further behind because it lacks the industrial capacity to replace its battlefield losses. As you have said many times, Putin's favorite weapon is intimidation, but no one is intimidated by his threats anymore.

 

[Kruska]

They are Russian missiles and if they are fired, the decision will be made in the Kremlin, so obviously the retaliation if there is any would be against Russia.

And NATO would be willing to go into a nuclear war with Russia? just how stupid are you?
And NATO can't do anything about Russian nukes stationed in Belarus - or does international law have a provison for attacking a souvereign country that is not at war with anyone, but simply allows for Russian nukes to be stationed there - you are more then just stupid.

 

[Ringo]

Does America Have a Future? |

www.paulcraigroberts.org

"...What can be done? The Kremlin no longer believes or trusts Washington, so no assurances that this is all a mistake, even if forthcoming, would be believed by the Russians.

Perhaps if every neoconservative was fired from the government, Russophobic think tanks closed, and the military/security complex permitted a president to be elected who immediately went to Moscow, agreed to the restoration of all the broken agreements and pulled NATO off of Russian borders, nuclear war could be prevented.

But can you imagine Washington doing such a thing? It would require leadership that Americans have not seen for a very long time. It would require comprehension in Congress and in the public, and there is no media or experts to instill comprehension.

Enjoy your life. Quit worrying about the future. The neoconservatives have assured that you don’t have one."

 

[Kruska]

"...What can be done? The Kremlin no longer believes or trusts Washington, so no assurances that this is all a mistake, even if forthcoming, would be believed by the Russians.

About the USA? I think nothing much - but that would be a huge topic on it's own.

China is absolutely against a nuclear war - either making deliberate use of fear towards a nuclear war - or in honest intentions, China might support or threaten NATO with support towards Russia via conventional means to end this war in the Ukraine, so as to avoid a nuclear confrontation.

 

[toomuchtime_]

And NATO would be willing to go into a nuclear war with Russia? just how stupid are you?
And NATO can't do anything about Russian nukes stationed in Belarus - or does international law have a provison for attacking a souvereign country that is not at war with anyone, but simply allows for Russian nukes to be stationed there - you are more then just stupid.

Your posts become more and more ridiculous every day. Moving the missiles to Belarus is just another empty threat from Putin now that it is clear Russia will not be able to prevail on the battlefield, however, in the unlikely chance they were fired at a NATO country, the retaliation would be against Russia, not Belarus.

 

[ESay]

About the USA? I think nothing much - but that would be a huge topic on it's own.

China is absolutely against a nuclear war - either making deliberate use of fear towards a nuclear war - or in honest intentions, China might support or threaten NATO with support towards Russia via conventional means to end this war in the Ukraine, so as to avoid a nuclear confrontation.

Yeah, it seems to be the case. China put forward demands to the West to limit their support for Ukraine, otherwise it will begin supplying weapons to Russia. It is no coincidence that reports about China considering arms supplies to Russia went in pair with China's peace proposals.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Yeah, it seems to be the case. China put forward demands to the West to limit their support for Ukraine, otherwise it will begin supplying weapons to Russia. It is no coincidence that reports about China considering arms supplies to Russia went in pair with China's peace proposals.

The growth of the Chinese economy is highly dependent on trade with the West, and after seeing the EU cut off oil and gas imports from Russia despite the pain it caused in Europe, I think it is highly unlikely China will risk the same treatment. Furthermore, after seeing the abysmal performance of the Russian military so far in Ukraine, II strongly doubt China will want to tie its future to the success of Russian arms in Ukraine.

 

[DGS49]

The most effective nukes that would play out in this never-never scenario are submarine-launched missiles.

And unlike the Russian weapons, ours would work properly. Putin dare not try to deploy any nukes, not only because he would be signing his own death warrant, but he knows that there is a 50-50 chance they would explode on the launchpad.

 

[Richard-H]

The question is not only about the missile ranges. There is a question about flight time of those missiles. It's not about what NATO will consider. It's all about what NATO will be able to do (after the Russian limited counterforce attack).
And then there will be choice for the USA:
a) accept new reality, make peace with Russia and lost NATO;
b) commit murder-suicide and lost both the USA and NATO.

What exactly will choose Biden's clique?
View attachment 771316

Turkey has already made it clear that any nuclear attack against Ukraine would be considered a nuclear attack against Turkey, and that means all of NATO.

So far, everything that the Russians have done has been a failure. Their military technology is not close to the capabilities of NATO's military technology - and the Ukrainians have not gotten anything close to NATO's best military technology.

Just as NATO was well prepared for the massive tank & Air Force attack against Ukraine, you can bet they are prepared for a Russian nuclear attack. Like everything else in this war, it will not go well for Russia.

 

[Richard-H]

I don't agree with your statement or rather conclusion
Belarus conventional forces are far too small and weak to go into action against Ukraine. It would be suicidal for Lukashenko to launch such an attack.

Russian short and mid-range missiles based in Belarus are covering more or less the entire Ukraine - is NATO going to attack/nuke Belarus? if Russia decides to use it's nukes from Belarusian territory e.g. against Ukraine? This situation has created a whole new dimension in regards to international law.

Don't be surprised if there is consent among NATO nations to destroy all nuclear weapons in Belarus using conventions weapons.

Stationing nuclear weapons in Belarus is a severe violation of the Nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

"Under Article I of the NPT, nuclear-weapon states pledge not to transfer nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices to any recipient or in any way assist, encourage or induce any non-nuclear-weapon state in the manufacture or acquisition of a nuclear weapon."

There's nothing that Russia or Belarus can do about it.

 

[badger2]

Does America Have a Future? |

www.paulcraigroberts.org

"...What can be done? The Kremlin no longer believes or trusts Washington, so no assurances that this is all a mistake, even if forthcoming, would be believed by the Russians.

Perhaps if every neoconservative was fired from the government, Russophobic think tanks closed, and the military/security complex permitted a president to be elected who immediately went to Moscow, agreed to the restoration of all the broken agreements and pulled NATO off of Russian borders, nuclear war could be prevented.

But can you imagine Washington doing such a thing? It would require leadership that Americans have not seen for a very long time. It would require comprehension in Congress and in the public, and there is no media or experts to instill comprehension.

Enjoy your life. Quit worrying about the future. The neoconservatives have assured that you don’t have one."

Your thread, "Kidnappers of Ukrainian Children" was inappropriately closed. The mod was too illiterate, too anxious to be a nazi, to grasp that your post is already a correct English translation of the Russian original. There's no chance America soon will be screwed.

 

[badger2]

Turkey has already made it clear that any nuclear attack against Ukraine would be considered a nuclear attack against Turkey, and that means all of NATO.

So far, everything that the Russians have done has been a failure. Their military technology is not close to the capabilities of NATO's military technology - and the Ukrainians have not gotten anything close to NATO's best military technology.

Just as NATO was well prepared for the massive tank & Air Force attack against Ukraine, you can bet they are prepared for a Russian nuclear attack. Like everything else in this war, it will not go well for Russia.

For example, the Kinzhal can't be stopped. The latest American test of such technology, failed. Appropriately, in California.