- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmit.online
Russian officials have threatened that a possible decision by the West to allow Kyiv to use donated weapons to strike deeper into Russian territory would result in a major escalation of its war against Ukraine that could include the use of nuclear weapons.
Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, warned on September 14 that Kyiv could be turned into a “gray melted spot” if restrictions against Ukraine’s use of Western weapons were loosened.
Medvedev found keys for the booze cabinet again? They seem to happily forget the fact that Moscow is well within reach of multiple Nato countries by now. Obviously a ton of things need to change before anyone with a gun is standing on a red square, but Finland, Sweden, Estonia and Poland (among others) are quite capable of hitting the Kreml (in theory, and in practise if needed) with fighter jets in less than 30 minutes. Additionally their ports opening to gulf of Finland are in reach of both Finns and Estonians with traditional artillely, and at least we in Finland are pretty capable and accurate with our hardware.
So, even if they find some old soviet relic still functional, Nato has multiple options to level multiple cities at Russia before their missile hits the ground. Nuclear attack against Ukraine would of course be a humongous tragedy with terrible price on civil casualties, but I’m pretty confident that it would be the last thing the Russia we currently know would do as a country.
Armchair speculation here, I do not think NATO would respond with nukes, but instead coordinated surgical strikes and special ops leadership decapitation.
I agree with you, nuclear response would make things very difficult with China and their allies, but there’s plenty of traditional firepower available directed to Russia if things escalate to that point and should Russia attack with nukes I don’t think they’ll have a lot of support for their actions from the east. And triggering nuclear response would likely end up in a MAD scenario which is something I think (and hope) no one really wants to see trough.
But that still leaves a pretty big field to work with traditional ammunition and a skilled pilot from Sweden could still reach Moscow in 20 minutes or so to turn multiple military targets within the city into a rubble. And there’s plenty of airfields closer than Stockholm with equally capable fighter jets. For the ground force, Finns and Estonians could at least in theory reach Moscow in 10-12 hours since majority of troops defending it are already down on some field in Ukraine and our artillery forces move pretty damn fast.
The amount of destruction Russia could cause is of course still an enormous humanitarian crisis, but even if they could turn Kiyv to wasteland (and kill millions while doing it), it still wouldn’t change the outcome of full Nato response without any bullshit politics limiting on actions if anyone is allowed to strike on the Russian soil.
Agree. Interesting points.
Agreed. Not a big fan of military in general, but NATO probably won’t go straight to nuclear genocide, as much as some people around here seem to want that.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m pro NATO in so much as it means “don’t fuck with us”. I just don’t see the need, Russia is paper mache with their cold war bench depth of gear and routines.
ie. Bunker Busting Nukes, not an airburst over a city.
Perhaps one or two as a treat.
Jk but actually I think they wouldn’t, just to say they didn’t.
I don’t think NATO needs them