Russia will make changes to its doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons in response to what it regards as Western escalation in the war in Ukraine, state media quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov as saying on Sunday.

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

Some hawks among Russia’s military analysts have urged Putin to lower the threshold for nuclear use in order to “sober up” Russia’s enemies in the West.

MBFC
Archive

  • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Fuck it, if that’s how we go that’s how we go.

    I think there are enough people with more brains than putler over there.

    I hope this does scare his Chinese and dkpr allies a bit though.

    This one barking Russian bitch is the reason so many flowers are growing?

    • aramis87@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Fuck it, if that’s how we go that’s how we go.

      Be faster than climate change.

  • portuga@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Why do these guys allways look like their family is being held hostage or something?

    • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      They’re not being actively held hostage in that there’s no giant prison with all their families in it.

      They are being held hostage because of the implication. The whereabouts of their family is well known so are they going to toe the line? Of course, because of the implication.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    In Putin’s eyes:

    Putin = Russia.

    So, “threatens the existence of the state” means “I might personally lose power over this”.

    It wasn’t that long ago troops marched towards Putin, and while he meant to teach the lesson “go against me and die” what he really taught everyone was “next time don’t negotiate and don’t believe anything I say”.

    All it takes is letting some fall guy with a personal grudge against Putin get close to him with a gun.

    Everyone gets to pretend that they didn’t want him dead, and the fall guy gets killed immediately after but got to settle his score first.

    Without Putin the focus goes back on making money, and Russia stops invading people and threatening nuclear Armageddon.

    The people around him are definitely considering if he’s worth more as a myth than a man at this point.

    • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Putin has no endgame.

      There is no timeline where he can step down and live peacefully.

      His one in a million is to conquer enough of Ukraine and somehow be allowed to keep it - but that’s not happening unless Donald wins the election.

      • ms.lane@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Even if crooked Don wins the election, Ukraine now has a nice Kursk that will need to be traded back.

        The more Ukraine grabs now, the less Russia is able to claim if crooked Don gets back in.

  • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    If their nuclear bombers went airborne the second Ukraine troops crossed their borders people would’ve taken them seriously. It would’ve shown how serious they were. But here we are, weeks after the invasion onto Russian soil, and their strong man argument is changing a few words on paper. It’s not very impressive or convincing.

    • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s worse than that. Russia knows they can never use nukes preemptively, it’s why they have their policy.

      Russia is one of the most centralized countries in the world, everything revolves around Moscow, all political and economic power, all administration, without Moscow they know Russia is dead.

      The whole point of a nuke is that it eats cities, their paranoia that Moscow would be hit during the cold War was extreme, they put incredible amounts of money into air and missile defenses and demanded carve outs to the abm treaties specifically for Moscow.

      Because Russia isn’t a country, it’s an empire ruled from Moscow, and it Moscow was destroyed it would instantly cease to be a country.

      Basically, if things reached a point where Moscow’s control over the rest of Russia was at risk, that’s when you’d see them start to negotiate.

    • MaDMaX99@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Well the American fascists used nukes in Japan, that entitles other nations to use nukes if they want

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        /s?

        Nukes are such a terrifying weapon that after being used, the world collectively shit its pants and said “maybe we’ve gone too far”. Truman fired a general who suggested using nukes in the Korean War, and everyday military personnel stopped a misunderstanding from causing a nuclear exchange in the Cold War.

        Country X doing a shitty thing did not entitle countries A-Z to also do that shitty thing. If it was terrible of X to do it, it’s terrible when anyone else does it, and they don’t get a pass just because of how shitty X was.

        Edit: Oh my god you’re serious. What the fuck.

      • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It’s a bit more nuanced than that. Russia would immediately be at war with every other nuclear state, but there wouldn’t necessarily be retaliatory nuclear strikes unless Russia began firing missiles at nuclear states too. The video I linked is a from a Danish professor who describes really well the dynamics of misusing nuclear weapons.

    • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      … if he isn’t a complete idiot…

      Hmm… Lol.

      On a serious note, a lot of people here seem to forget that any nuclear weapon hurts the entire planet and all of us in it. It is weird to see people who supposedly care about injustices suddenly go 100% in on devastating the ecosystem and mass murdering inocents (since you know, nuclear bombs are traditionally not used on military targets).

  • Porto881@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    And we can assume that these nukes, unlike the conventional armory, have been maintained since the Cold War and not sold off to private interests?

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I seem to recall a big kerfuffle around a decade and a half back about Russia not actually knowing what became of a whole bunch of nuclear weapons in the aftermath of the USSR collapsing. There were also rumors of Soviet nukes being sold off to various unsavory groups. It really wouldn’t surprise me to find out there was some truth to that.

      I have also heard that ICBMs and the like require regular expensive and specialized maintenance in order to remain functional. Knowing what we now know about Russia what do you figure the odds are that some general or other decided those maintenance funds would be better used to line their pockets since the odds of actually using those nukes were so low?

      • rhys@lemmy.rhys.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I have no doubt large parts of their nuclear arsenal have been stripped to fund their maintainers’ Krokodil habits but it only takes one to start a nuclear war, and a smaller and simpler tactical warhead on a Khinzal or Kh-15 of the sort we’d likely see used against Ukraine is less likely to have been scavenged.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Almost all nuclear weapons require quite a bit of expertise to maintain over time. If they got sold off 30 years ago, chances are 99% that they’re mostly good for lighting off as a dirty bomb and not much else at this point.

  • socsa@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Russia: nuclear terrorism is all we have left.

    Millennials: don’t threaten us with a good time.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Zoomers: Maybe we’ll finally get to eat some rich people for real.

      Alphas: Skibidi (Eh, they’re still young)

      • Noodle07@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        As a millennial I have great wisdom to give the youth of today: Go play pokemon and have fun with your friend before it’s too late

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          I wonder if there’s Skibidi Toilet trading cards. Probably.

          My gen Z ass has premature grey hairs now, so I’m not in the picture.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago
    Media Bias/Fact Check - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for Media Bias/Fact Check:

    MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United States of America
    Wikipedia about this source

    Reuters - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for Reuters:

    MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United Kingdom
    Wikipedia about this source

    Search topics on Ground.News

    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-will-change-nuclear-doctrine-due-wests-actions-ukraine-official-says-2024-09-01/
    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/

    Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

  • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Russia: We’re updating the conditions required for the West to glass us when we get too big for our britches

    What the fuck Russia?? How hard are you planning on rattling that sabre?

    • Zron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      MAD is like 2 men standing in a lake of gasoline, one man has 3 matches, the other has 5, both threaten to use their matches if the other uses his.

      Russia is saying they’ll use their matches if the other guy throws a rock at him. The fucking situation is stupid and I hope that my ashes get blasted to a different planet when the bombs go off. I don’t want to even be a part of this stupid planets carbon cycle anymore.

  • profdc9@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    The only material changes I can see would be for Russia to move nuclear weapons into occupied Ukraine and/or resumes nuclear testing. Every other escalation does not result in a change their stance that can be perceived from outside Russia. Either of these events would cause an enormous elevation in the readiness and deployment of NATO forces and would risk uncontrolled escalation. How desperate is Putin now?