Not only that but Ukraine never had full control over them anyway. All Soviet land based nuclear weapons were directly controlled from Moscow by the President of the Union Republics, formerly Gorbachev. When he stepped down he passed the football and code book over to Boris Yeltsin. Everyone had already decided that the president of the Russian Federation would inherit the office and powers of the President of the Union Republics.
Ukraine before 1993 had the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal solely because the Soviets deployed a ■■■■ ton of weapons there. But Kiev never had access to them because of how Soviet PAL systems worked. So it was effectively useless.
Dr. Doctorow has been studying Putin’s statements and his behavior for many years.
He is saying that likely stages of Russian escalation to serious NATO missile attacks on Russia would be:
-
Destruction of the government targets in Kiev possibly followed by destruction of the city after giving time for the evacuation of civilians.
-
Destruction of the main logistics hub in Poland for arms shipments to Ukraine.
Plane-Spotting NATO’s Logistics Hub for Ukraine – Little Polish Airport, Lots of Big US Cargo Planes
-
Destruction of military bases and factories in western Europe.
Doctorow’s point is that no one in NATO would care about the destruction of Kiev. No one in NATO is willing to go to war over a limited attack on Poland. No one in Washington is willing to go to nuclear war to defend bases and factories in Europe.
The attacks would not necessarily require nuclear weapons.
Steps 1 and 2 would effectively result in the collapse of the Ukrainian army and the central government.
Step 3 would effectively result in the destruction of NATO. Doctorow includes Britain and France in the attacks, but that is unlikely in my opinion since they both have submarine-based nuclear forces that could destroy Russian cities.
Any Russian attack on NATO countries would guarantee a nuclear response from the United States. They know this. The Federation isn’t stupid.
There’s a reason that even Obama rejected a policy change from ambiguous first use to no first use (like China) back in 2008. It limits options. The US military likes options more than anything else.
He is buying back at a lower price that he sold it.
Basic facts
That doesn’t change anything i said but stellar try
There is no guarantee, only a suggestion.
The only real requirement in Article 5 is referral to the UN Security Council.
Article 5.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
For context, consider how the US defends its own border with Mexico. Defense of the border of Poland and Germany may get even less of a response.
I humbly stand corrected.
WuWei
109
Ukraine is none of US business.
1 Like
NATO-supplied jets flying from NATO bases towards Russian targets is a good way to start WW3.
Russia has already said that any base used to in attacks on Russian forces will be a target. That is true whether the base is in Ukraine or Poland.
The F-16 is nuclear capable. Russian forces will assume that any F-16 heading towards Russia from a NATO base may be armed with nuclear weapons. The Russian response could include tactical nukes.
Given that fighter pilots take years to become proficient, it is likely that NATO “contractors” or “instructors” will be used instead of Ukrainian pilots who have been rushed through a training program. The only thing Ukrainian about the F-16 may well be the markings.
LOL… Russian propaganda rags.
What will the NATO response be when Russia takes out a Ukrainian F-16 base in Poland?
likely not nuclear. Likely to roll into Moskow which should take all of about 3 weeks.
That would depend entirely on what Russia would do. Chances are they get super desperate and start throwing tactical nukes around. It’s all they have.
Yes, and how much will be left of the US and Europe after thermonuclear war?
Russia can beat NATO without nuclear weapons. Conventional Russian missiles can hit supply lines, staging areas ports, and airbases throughout Europe. NATO weapons stocks have already been decimated supplying Ukraine and Israel.
A hot war with Russia would not be another Desert Storm where the US could mass forces and equipment for many months with no real fear of attack.
Russia is fighting on their home ground. The US has 5000 miles of logics headaches.
You seem awfully confident in Russia’s capabilities. Capabilities that the war in Ukraine has shown isn’t much farther than the Soviets were in the 1980s.
They mostly stagnated for 30 years. Only recently have they started making some technological advances again.
Bout the same as Russia. Not much at all.
That’s why it probably won’t happen. Neither side is ran by complete morons.
they can barely hit Ukraine
you’ve been claiming that for two years… and yet
What makes you think the US would even be needed? Russia couldn’t stand up to Poland the way its looking.
no, they’re fighting on Ukraine’s home ground… that would be what invasion means
