ANOTHER day, another nuclear threat from Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin.
Today is the 934th day of the all-out war he has launched against Ukraine since February 24, 2022.
6
At the start of the invasion of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin considered options that included exploding a ‘tactical nuclear weapon’ over the Black Sea as a show of forceCredit: Reuters
6
A Russian ammunition depot explodes in a ball of fire in the occupied Kherson region of Ukraine, following an alleged strike by UK-supplied Storm Shadow missilesCredit: East2West
It’s hard to keep track of how many times Putin or his stooges have threatened Armageddon.
Make no mistake, on one level these threats are utterly terrifying.
Putin has a hand in the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, with nearly 6,000 warheads that could turn the Earth to ashes.
And we know he came close to using them.
The head of the US CIA, Bill Burns, confirmed during a speech in London last week that there was a “real risk”, at the start of the war, that Moscow was preparing to launch nuclear weapons. It was the fall of 2022.
At the time, The Sun revealed that then British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace had rushed to the US for crisis talks at the Pentagon.
Putin considered options that included exploding a “tactical nuclear weapon” over the Black Sea, as a show of force.
Tactical nukes have smaller payloads than larger strategic or doomsday weapons. But, regardless, they are disastrous.
Putin has a hand in the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, with nearly 6,000 warheads that could turn the Earth to ashes.
At that time, Russian forces were attacking Ukraine. Putin’s original plan for a three-day invasion was in shambles. Instead of the victory parade he had dreamed of, Russian forces withdrew from the Ukrainian capital of Kiev, leaving behind a truly sickening trail of murder, rape and war crimes.
The moment Ukraine launched a Storm Shadow missile from a fighter jet in an attack that left holes in Putin’s prized submarine last year
Then Russian front lines collapsed east of Kharkiv as Ukraine fired its first GMLRS guided missiles from US and British launchers.
Secret reports
And finally, Putin’s forces were forced to abandon the southern Ukrainian city of Kherson, the only regional capital they captured after the bloody invasion.
Putin was on the ropes and worried he might lose Crimea, home to his Black Sea naval base.
He had to try to stop the rot and he thought the nuke was the way to do it.
The West’s response was both frantic and rigorous, but also largely unprecedented at the time.
The diplomatic onslaught included sharp threats against Russia and urgent pleas to China and India to help rein in the Kremlin.
6
How Storm Shadow works, its stats and potential targets in Russia
Burns was sent to Turkey to meet with his Russian counterpart Sergei Naryshkin, head of the SVR foreign intelligence service, which is today’s KGB.
Speaking in London last week, Burns said he had been “very clear” with Naryshkin about what the consequences would be if Putin went nuclear.
Burns did not reveal the details of those threats, but The Sun understands they included the possibility of “massive and direct” conventional strikes by the US and its allies against Russia.
In other words, World War III.
The prospect of fighting America was enough to push Putin over the edge.
However ruthless and cruel he may be, the tyrant from the Kremlin is not crazy. He is a dictator obsessed with his legacy.
He sees himself as a modern emperor who is restoring Russia’s former glory from the embers of the USSR.
If he wants Russian children in love to sing songs about him in 1000 years, it would not be wise to destroy humanity now.
The last thing he wants is to wipe Russia off the face of the planet.
Perhaps this is why Burns was so adamant that the West should not be intimidated by a constant stream of doomsday threats.
The director of the CIA said: “I have never thought – and this is the position of my agency – that we should be intimidated unnecessarily [nuclear threats].
Putin is a bully and will continue to rattle his guns from time to time.”
The head of Britain’s MI6 agreed. Spy chief Sir Richard Moore, who shared the stage with Burns, said: “There is only one side talking about nuclear escalation and that is Putin.
“It is deeply irresponsible. No one in the West will be intimidated by such thoughts or any other behavior by the Russian state.”
These are the people who see the most secret of the secret reports about Putin’s state of mind, his motives and his red lines.
They say we shouldn’t be afraid, because Putin is a bully and the best way to deal with a bully is to stand up to threats.
Their opinion is shared by Lord Robertson, the former Secretary General of NATO who met Putin face to face nine times and is currently leading a defense review of the reshaping of the British armed forces.
In a paper written this summer, he argued: “We cannot be deterred in our support for Ukraine by fear of escalation.”
He argued that tactical nuclear weapons “have no military utility.”
Their radiation would strike back at Russia and any use of them would immediately cost Moscow the support of China and India.
Lord Robertson added: “The stakes could not be higher.
If Putin succeeds, then our enemies will write a new world order. The safety and security of the West is at stake.”
Which brings us to the here and now. Why is Putin threatening war with NATO again?
It’s all about long-range missiles and whether the West – and by extension America – will give Ukraine permission to use them to strike Russia.
Britain and France have supplied Ukraine with stealth bunker busting cruise missiles with a declared range of 150 miles – in reality, probably much more.
Britain calls them Storm Shadows, France calls them Scalp, but they are the same weapon designed to hit solid and well-defended targets, including radar installations, ammunition depots and command posts.
America has donated a ground-launched ballistic missile known as ATACMS, with a similar range.
Ukraine wants to use all those weapons to hit high-value targets in Russia — most notably the dozen or so airfields it uses almost nightly to launch devastating airstrikes.
Unmanned aerial vehicles of Iranian production
If Ukraine can put Russian airfields at risk or render them unusable, Moscow would have to use bases further away.
This would mean that the planes have to carry more fuel – and means fewer bombs or missiles per sortie, and less death and destruction in Ukraine.
Britain has signaled that it is willing. Senior UK military officials support Ukraine’s strategy.
But the White House stood in the way, fearing the conflict could spiral out of control. And it is this fear that Putin is trying to exploit.
He told Russian TV that such a move would “change the very nature of the conflict.” He added: “This would mean that NATO countries are at war with Russia.”
He appears to be trying to distract America with the same threat of direct conflict that Bill Burns made two years ago.
The difference is that shameless Putin thinks nothing of bombing Ukraine with Iranian-made Shahed drones, North Korean ballistic missiles and trains full of artillery shells.
He relies on China to fuel his war machine with high-tech tools and components, the US State Department says.
And it recently took delivery of more than 200 ballistic missiles from Iran, in a move America condemned as a “dramatic escalation.”
Why, Ukraine asks, can Russia use foreign weapons to devastate its towns and cities while Kiev is not allowed to strike back with Western Storm Shadows and ATACMS?
Frustration in Kiev is now boiling over. Their sons and daughters die.
Why, Ukrainian President Zelensky asks, can Western planes defend Israel by shooting down Iranian missiles, but won’t do the same for Ukraine?
Zelensky said yesterday: “Anyone who sees the map from which Russia launches its strikes, trains its forces, keeps reserves, locates its military facilities and what kind of logistics it uses, clearly understands why Ukraine needs long-range capabilities.”
Some people argue that arming Ukraine only prolongs the war, increases suffering and delays Russia’s inevitable victory.
The opposite is true.
Ukraine is determined to fight because it has no choice. If it doesn’t fight, it won’t exist.
But if we force it to fight with limitations and flaws — such as bans on targeting Russian targets — more soldiers, civilians and children will die on both sides before Russia is ready to make peace.
As Sir Keir Starmer pointed out yesterday, Vladimir Putin started this carnage. Only he can finish it as quickly.
The question for Starmer and US President Joe Biden, who met at the White House yesterday, was how they could convince him to take that action.
Do they succumb to the threats of tyrants? Or do they listen to their spy bosses who say these threats are hollow?
6
Faced with Putin’s nuclear threats, Biden must show unwavering resolveCredit: AP
6
Ukrainian President Zelensky asks why Western jets can protect Israel by intercepting Iranian missiles, but won’t do the same for Ukraine? Credit: AFP
6
Keir Starmer pointed out that Putin started the carnage in UkraineCredit: PA
It is naive to hope that any Western weapon – Storm Shadow or ATACMS – could bring the war to a sudden end.
If he wants to convince Putin, it’s not just about weapons. It is a test of the West’s resolve. Biden and Starmer have something to show.
And it would be good if they listen to President Zelenski, who repeated Lord Robertson yesterday.
Zelenskiy’s message to his allies was clear: “Putin only understands strength.”
Categories: Optical Illusion
Source: HIS Education