You're viewing a single thread.
A lot of these are not exactly clear threats. If you used the same standards I’m sure you could come up with a similar list from the US.
No, you couldn't.
Well, I’m much too lazy to generate a list, but considering feverish claims by sycophantic journalists as threats from the regime is pretty questionable. And of course the US has maintained its preemptive nuclear strike policy, which also appears on this list for Russia several times. So those things alone would be a moderately long list I expect.
So you made it up and now can't provide a single source to your made up claims?
Made what up, exactly? I’m not going to go through all of the statements made by hawkish journalists about how the US should use its arsenal because that’s a ridiculous thing to even care about, let alone summarize—that was my point, that this list includes many tangential and absurd claims not made by the actual government of Russia.
As far as the second claim, it’s easy to verify and I thought it was common knowledge that the US maintains the right to strike first with nukes, just as Russia did but since apparently many people in this thread are unfamiliar with US policy, here you go: https://theintercept.com/2022/04/11/nuclear-weapons-biden-russia-strike-policy/
I was talking about this statement you made.
A lot of these are not exactly clear threats. If you used the same standards I’m sure you could come up with a similar list from the US.
The article you sent is about the first strike power not even the same subject?
So you haven’t read the list we’re discussing. No wonder this is not a productive discussion.
Several of the articles listed here are simply Russia reiterating that they will not restrict use of nuclear weapons to retaliatory strikes… just as the US has. This is exactly what I mean when I say that many of these items are not threats in the conventional sense of the word.
To be clear: I condemn the nuclear weapons policies and programs of both nations. But they are not direct threats to other nations in and of themselves.
Dude I don't know this is annoying and pretty dumb. The first one on the list I haven't read has nothing to even do with the USA? Can you share a statement the USA has made in an official capacity like the first one on the list I allegedly haven't read?
This is just a bunch of whataboutism and changing the subject. I get you allegedly might not like nuclear weapons but most counties that have them don't constantly threaten to use them for every perceived aggression.
Russian retoric has gotten pretty escalatory and I can't say I've seen the same for the USA recently. They have some north Korean energy... So please prove me wrong or just stop. Show me where the USA is threatening the apocalypse with Russia to secure concessions from non nuclear armed states? I'll even take an official NATO statement saying we are in a hot war with Russia and will need to escalate to using nukes first if that's easier? To be clear we are taking post ussr.
Most counties don't try to hold the world hostage with nuclear blackmail. Please just drop it...
I’m sorry if I’m annoying you but factually incorrect posts annoy me. Especially in a time of war when hostilities and emotions are high, it is best to be skeptical and analyze the facts in a level-headed manner.
The rest of your comment does not seem relevant. Can I provide a source of the US threatening Russia with nukes? No, because I never said they did that. I can provide some links that sycophants would exaggerate into threats (and have already done so elsewhere in this thread), but I don’t think you would find those convincing. Therefore you should not find them convincing when the places are reversed.
Russian rhetoric has certainly gotten aggressive. This is why it’s so silly to include normal, non-threatening behavior on this list. It’s really not needed for the overall point that Russias nuclear policy is threatening and reckless. That remains true, but this list also remains an exaggeration of that truth.
Yeah I don't know dude look over your posts your schizo posting... You only provided one source and it was regarding the president having the power to first strike...
Anyways I'm not going to be the one to ban you but this is dumb you didn't get any point across.
Please try to be nice and engage in good faith in the future of you want a discussion not whatever this is.
Hope you have a better day tomorrow. 🫡
Wow, it's news to me that the US has a nuclear first-strike policy.
Maybe because it's not the case.
The US is an imperialist bully, but you weaken your case by making false statements.
https://theintercept.com/2022/04/11/nuclear-weapons-biden-russia-strike-policy/
What false statements?
Yea uh, no. You could not lmao. Please give me a list of the us threatening any other countries this many times publicly.
Why should I? My point is not that the US has made threats, my point is that many of the listed events are not threats and it’s misleading to describe them as such.
Generating such a biased, exaggerated list for the US would be a waste of time, and would constitute propaganda. Just as this list is a pointless piece of propaganda.
You said word for word that you could make a similar list with us threats, but then now you say it would be a waste of time? None of these threats on this list are not credible. These are just article titles, but if you look at each article they all have a direct quote from a Russian head of state threatening the use of its nuclear arsenal against the west. Also, defending Russia by saying a peice of propoganda is pointless is so laughable I could cry. You read the articles and not just the titles right?
I read some. Enough to find some that did not contain threats from the Kremlin. But I know you didn’t read them all either.
And the existence of Russian propaganda does not mean there is not pro-western propaganda as well. Propaganda exists in many forms. And it is all bad.
Sooo, which ones exactly did you read that had no credible threat? Because as others have stated, they have made clear threats in these articles. Do go off on how russia and the US both have made an assiniging amount of threats, it's nice to find who the russian bots are.
bots
this is poisoning the well.
Lmao, from
A lot of these are not exactly clear threats. If you used the same standards I’m sure you could come up with a similar list from the US.
to
Generating such a biased, exaggerated list for the US would be a waste of time
Aka "I'm having trouble sourcing my own claim so just trust me bro"
Trust me or don’t, I don’t care. If you just read what’s there it’s fairly obvious, didn’t think this would be so controversial.
Vatnik scum fuck off.
I don’t even know what that means but I’m pretty whatever you think about me or my views, it’s not correct.
Yeah, you don't seem to know much about anything.
Few people do!
The US doesn't have to make nuclear threats since they have an overwhelming advantage in non-nuclear firepower.
you don't make a threat that you don't act upon later, this undermines your credibility
edit: you also don't make unclear threats for the same reason, especially when it comes to nukes
Seriously, it's Interrogation 101
Forget interrogation, it's parenting.
I guess I was being charitable. I would not classify many of them as threats at all. Though some clearly are, which is dangerous and reprehensible. But this list is highly exaggerated and gives a false impression of Russian behavior unless you read the individual fine print.
I'm curious, by the way. When can you come up with a similar list from the US regarding nuclear threats?
YeAh, WhAtAbOuT tHe US? DiD aNyOnE mEnTiOn US BaD yEt?
Rubles please daddy Putin
a threat where russia has no balls to follow through is still a threat