Russia blames the West for a change in its Nuclear Doctrine

Posted at the request of our good friend ufoorbhunter, with thanks to him:

Russia has said the agenda of Washington and the "collective West" has forced the country to change its nuclear doctrine.

The existing nuclear doctrine, set out in a decree by President Vladimir Putin in 2020, says Russia may use nuclear weapons in case of a nuclear attack by an enemy or a conventional attack that threatens the existence of the state.

The new revisions have not been detailed but come "against the backdrop of the challenges and threats provoked by the countries of the so-called collective West", Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said today.

Moscow is taking into account the possibility of Ukraine using US-supplied long-range weapons in its attacks deep into the Russian territory, he added.

Russia's foreign ministry also warned the West and Ukraine this morning that Moscow will give an immediate response in the event of long-range strikes on Russian territory by Ukraine.

Maria Zakharova, Russia's foreign ministry spokeswoman, said the response would be "extremely painful".

She also said the West "should think about the risks of further escalation of the Ukraine conflict" and that Western politicians are losing touch with reality." news.sky.com.

Oops. Sky news link broken.

Try this one:

www.msn.com...

More Russian red lines been crossed.

Fortunately they draw them in erasable ink.

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Lavrov seems to be off his head, again....

I really don't understand why we're continuing to mess with Russia, even by proxy. It won't end well for us, and ultimately it's not our battle to fight. I'm not in any way saying that Ukraine should surrender, but I am saying that it would be best for everyone involved if we approached this from a diplomatic perspective and not from a military perspective. That, and Ukraine, or more correctly Zelinsky, is corrupt as holy hell and we know it for a fact.

Russia has a right to exist and has a right to exist independently from the western world. Russia has a right to say it doesn't want NATO at its doorstep, and I'm a firm believer in the idea that if there is a perceived threat at your doorstep you have the absolute right to respond violently against it. That isn't to say that I think Russia attempting to invade Ukraine is okay by any means, but groups on both sides of the conflict are at fault for escalating the situation.

I really think it's a very bad idea to keep pushing Russia. They're absolutely crazy enough to kickoff nuclear holocaust because we keep poking the bear.

a reply to: MrGashler

"Russia has a right to say it doesn't want NATO at its doorstep, .."

And sovereign Countries have the right to join NATO if they wish to do so.

Like Finland and Sweden have, thanks to Putin and his aggressive expansionism.

a reply to: MrGashler

Russia has a right to exist and has a right to exist independently from the western world.

Of course they do, I don't think anyone has ever questioned that. No-one was threatening their existence.....and they still aren't. No-one has threatened to invade Russia or declare war on them. Their independence and right to exist isn't an issue.

What is an issue is those self-same rights being extended to Ukraine.
Putin himself has clearly stated that he doesn't recognise Ukraine's right to exist as an independent nation.
Putin has bought Ukrainian politicians and manipulated events in order to further his illusions of a Greater Russia.

Russia has a right to say it doesn't want NATO at its doorstep,....

No, it hasn't.
Those independent nations chose to approach NATO and ask for membership as is the right of all independent countries to seek and join any organisation/alliance they wish to....its part of being independent.

Ukraine wasn't a part of NATO, it had been told it had no chance at all of becoming a member for at least 25 years.
Ukraine posed no threat at all to Russian sovereignty and independence.
NATO and its member nations have never expressed any desire to control or compromise Russian independence.

Even the threat of using first strike nuclear weapons should be universally condemned.
Everyone is more than aware of their power, the damage they cause and the potential for escalation and maybe even M.A.D.

The only people even suggesting their possible usage are Putin and his cronies and that's where the condemnation and moral outrage should be directed towards.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I don't disagree. But we can't very well act surprised when Russia gets pissed off about people joining an alliance that was formed SPECIFICALLY to stand against Russia. Again, I'm not saying Russia is right in what they've done, but I am saying I understand it and that Russia isn't entirely to blame for all of this.

originally posted by: MrGashler
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I don't disagree. But we can't very well act surprised when Russia gets pissed off about people joining an alliance that was formed SPECIFICALLY to stand against Russia. Again, I'm not saying Russia is right in what they've done, but I am saying I understand it and that Russia isn't entirely to blame for all of this.

The reason so many Russia's near neighbours are so keen to join NATO is Russia's long and continued history of imperialism and oppression against those neighbours.

a reply to: MrGashler

It was specifically formed as a defensive alliance. Not to threaten Russia.

It is Russia that constantly rattles it's nuclear sabres, not the West.

Do you think if a sovereign country wants to join NATO freely and of it's own accord we should deny them because it might upset Putin?

Thanks to him, and him alone, he now has more NATO on his borders.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise
More Russian red lines been crossed.

Fortunately they draw them in erasable ink.

Fortunately the ink they draw those lines in runs, like a Russian conscript, when challenged.



Given the "effectiveness" of the Russian military and its weapons demonstrated so far, it is questionable as to whether or not Russia even possesses a nuclear capability worthy of a "doctrine".

a reply to: Mantiss2021

Maybe, but I don't want to find out!

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise
More Russian red lines been crossed.

Fortunately they draw them in erasable ink.

Fortunately the ink they draw those lines in runs, like a Russian conscript, when challenged.



Given the "effectiveness" of the Russian military and its weapons demonstrated so far, it is questionable as to whether or not Russia even possesses a nuclear capability worthy of a "doctrine".

I tend to take a pragmatic view of this.

I suspect that given years of underfunding, corruption, poot maintenance and general incompetence of russian military command that the failure rate of their nuclear weapons and delivery systems would be very high.

However it only takes a few to work to really ruin a lot of peoples day.

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Yes. Just a bit of Canned Sunshine can be really bad for an awful lot of folk.

Not good.

a reply to: MrGashler

amazingly enough, the agression by Russia is what's bringing NATO to it's doorstep. Poor plannng leads to poor results.

And as for being upset the country they started a war with, is waring right back at them, FAFO.

originally posted by: MrGashler
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I don't disagree. But we can't very well act surprised when Russia gets pissed off about people joining an alliance that was formed SPECIFICALLY to stand against Russia. Again, I'm not saying Russia is right in what they've done, but I am saying I understand it and that Russia isn't entirely to blame for all of this.

If by "this" you refer to the current war with Ukraine, sorry, Russia is 100% to blame for "this".

a reply to: network dude

For once, I agree with you.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I really don't understand why it is so important to everyone what is written in Russia's nuclear doctrine. Putin has been prattling on all the time how Russia is continuously attacked, how its existence is threatened so according to his perspective, foolish as it is, Russia has a right to use nuclear weapons even now without changing its nuclear doctrine. So why does it matter if it's changed?

a reply to: twistedpuppy

I guess, we will see?

a reply to: twistedpuppy

So why does it matter if it's changed?

It doesn't , Dmitry Medvedev has been threatening to Nuke Ukraine and others for a while , the undisclosed change seems like more sabre rattling from an under pressure President.

Ukraine says they quite like Kursk , they may stay a while.