Re: World Alert: Russia says it’s willing to use nuclear weapons against any nation that attacks with the support of a nuclear power

[Sukla Sen]

Friends,

This is obviously meant to intimidate Ukraine -- and more than that its "allies" -- against which the Kleptocrat Putin-led Russia launched its massive invasion on Feb. 24th 2022 with the idea of reoccupying it pretty promptly, maybe a week or so. So that the ongoing miraculous resistance fumbles and then collapses on account of adequate material support.

Here's an excerpt from a recent response of mine to one of the too many similar news items designed(?) to trigger panic in the Western camp.

It's noteworthy that no such news items or comments are in circulation in relation to Israel's ongoing war against Gaza and Lebanon.

The excerpt:

<<These threats, as we all know, have been issued, by now, innumerable times. Since the day one. (Ref.: <https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-update-russias-elite-ukraine-war-major-speech-2023-02-21/>.

While Putin himself leads with somewhat guarded words, Medvedev, a former President himself and currently the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, is arguably the seniormost of his minions who is far more uninhibited. The task of issuing the threats periodically, as it appears, rests primarily on his shoulder.

As far as Putin himself is concerned, his shrillest (and most comical?) was, understandably, this one: "In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a speech Wednesday. “This is not a bluff.” (Ref.: <https://www.rsn.org/001/what-putins-latest-threats-mean-for-the-risk-of-nuclear-war.html> and, also, <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/21/putin-calls-300000-reservists-partial-mobilisation/>  and <https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2022/sep/21/not-bluffing-putin-accuses-west-nuclear-blackmail-l

That was back on September 21 2022.

(Also look up, for my comments on this renewed "bluff_ at that time: <https://groups.google.com/g/greenyouth/c/8y50BjW0xV4/m/F65dg0MwBQAJ>.)

Despite the threats, the humiliating retreat from Kherson would happen. Not too long after. (Ref.: <https://groups.google.com/g/greenyouth/c/RSeRTQTmRc0/m/HWM1xDXfBAAJ>.)

Not to forget, Kherson had duly been declared as an integral part of the Russian Federation on September 30 2022 in a formal event: <http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69465>.

So, the bluff was called out.

If that was not enough, then came the intrusion deep into the original territory of the Russian Federation: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL0_TnwTZtU>.

That's more than a month by now.

Its implications were so stunning that there was a virtual temporary moratorium on issuing of nuclear threats.

That, of course, doesn't mean that the conflict cannot turn nuclear. By design or by accident.

That possibility always remains when contending parties are armed with nuclear weapons. Threat or no threat. This or that phrase in their nuclear doctrines.

But, a bluff is a bluff. And these bluffs are specifically meant to make the West, and the US in particular, desist from providing effective military help to Ukraine to resist and push back Putin's massive invasion.

Let's recall that the the very first US response of the US to the invasion was an offer to Zelensky to fly him out of Ukraine, presumably, to head a government in exile. (Ref.: <https://www.timesofisrael.com/zelensky-rejects-us-evacuation-offer-from-ukraine-i-need-ammunition-not-a-ride/amp/.)

If Putin, eventually, uses nuclear weapons -- big or small -- in this conflict, most likely, it'd be done without issuing any warning at all.>>

Here, it may be noted, Putin is talking of amending the extant nuclear doctrine.

How about the unamended nuclear doctrine vis-a-vis the humiliating retreat from Kherson and then the incursion deep inside the old Russian territory!?

Sukla

On Wed, Sep 25, 2024, 23:36 Vivek Sundara. <viveks...@gmail.com> wrote:

Russian President Vladimir Putin said the country’s nuclear policy needed to be updated in light of “new sources of military threats.” An attack by a nonnuclear power with the support of a nuclear one would be seen as a joint attack on Russia, he said in a speech to his security council. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

Sign up for alerts World Alert Sept. 25, 1:47 p.m. EDT Russia says it’s willing to use nuclear weapons against any nation that attacks with the support of a nuclear power Russian President Vladimir Putin said the country’s nuclear policy needed to be updated in light of “new sources of military threats.” An attack by a nonnuclear power with the support of a nuclear one would be seen as a joint attack on Russia, he said in a speech to his security council. Read more   Advertisement

Manage my email newsletters and alerts |  ©2024 The Washington Post | 1301 K St NW, Washington DC 20071

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "binayakplanning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to binayakplanni...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/binayakplanning/CAP7zoGZMqqD75K7A9dJM9xtEy%3D-b%3DS%2BGy2%2BFuiHDgjKe2XzPmg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sukla Sen]

Dear Aaron,

Thanks for your thoughtful intervention.

Guess, the following excerpt is relevant in the subject context.

<<A negative security assurance is a guarantee by a nuclear weapon state (a state that possess nuclear weapons) that it will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states (states that do not possess nuclear weapons).

A positive security assurance is a guarantee by a nuclear weapon state that it will come to the aid of a non-nuclear weapon state if it is attacked by another state with nuclear weapons.

No international legally-binding treaty or resolution containing negative security assurances exists, despite repeated calls by a number of non-nuclear weapon states. This undermines a sense of security for states that have renounced nuclear weapons and reinforces the misconception that the possession of and right to use nuclear weapons will deter aggression and increase security.>>

(Ref.: <https://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/fact-sheets/critical-issues/5442-negative-security-assurances>.)

This "new policy", as I get it, is an assurance by an NPT NWS, i.e. Russian Federation, to an NPT NWS, i.e. Russian Federation, i.e. to itself.

This following excerpt from the original report is also interesting:

<<“The updated version of the document proposes that aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear-weapon state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear-weapon state, should be considered as a joint attack on the Russian Federation,” Putin told the council.

He said the conditions for the launch of Russia’s nuclear weapons would be “reliable information about a massive launch of aerospace attack means and their crossing of our state border.”>>

Sukla

On Thu, Sep 26, 2024, 08:04 Aaron Tovish <aaron....@gmail.com> wrote:

Sukla, thanks for circulating this article and your comments upon it.  I would note that this "new" policy is actually in line with the "negative security assurances" the NPT NWSs have given the NNWSs parties.  The implicit assumption of those NSAs was that the NNWS would be assisting the NWS's conventional attack (since no NNWS in its right mind would attack a NWS).  The "new" doctrine clarifies that the assistance can be in the opposite direction as well.  

The bottom line: this has been the policy of NATO as well as Russia going back well before 1995.  Aaron

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Nuclear News List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to nuclear-news-l...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nuclear-news-list/CACEsOZghTqVR5%3DJoWrf0XZitazjADwkytgdcfnfTt7kwp2T2Hg%40mail.gmail.com.