The Kremlin announces nuclear weapons drills on Putin's orders

MicroWave@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.world – 228 points – The Kremlin announces nuclear weapons drills on Putin's orders
euronews.com

The move comes after an acrimonious exchange with senior Western officials, labelled by Moscow as 'provocative threats'.

Moscow plans to hold a military exercise simulating the use of tactical nuclear weapons, the Defense Ministry announced, just days after the Kremlin reacted angrily to comments by senior Western officials about the war in Ukraine.

The drills are in response to “provocative statements and threats of certain Western officials regarding the Russian Federation,” the Defence Ministry said in a statement Monday.

The exercise is intended to “increase the readiness of non-strategic nuclear forces to fulfil combat tasks” and will be held on President Vladimir Putin’s orders, according to the statement. The manoeuvres plan to involve missile units of the Southern Military District along with Russia's air force and navy.

39

The people in charge of these drills are the same folks who told putin that Ukraine would fall in three days. They used the money meant for the military to feather their own nests.

None of them will risk their dachas and harems to start WW3.

I hope you're right. I grew up learning about the Cold War. Didn't think I'd have to experience it, but these fuckers refuse to leave power unless they die, and even then the survivors just Weekend at Bernie's the corpse like Feinstein.

This is nothing like the Cold War.

Back in the 1950s they were doing Atom Bomb tests within sight of Las Vegas. Seeing the explosions was a tourist draw.

Nothing says "we're on path towards inevitable victory" (as Russian shills like to claim) like nuclear saber rattling.

Seems Putin is the only one promoting the idea of nuclear war lately, and he knows what will happen if he starts it.

It's the only card he's still holding that means anything to the western nations he's in a proxy war with.

Nobody wants a nuclear war, which is why he's betting on western nations erring on the side of caution when he does shit like this.

LOL. They've announced this 3 times since they invaded Ukraine.

This is a given with every nuclear armed Western country. It's not even worth discussing unless your armory is in a state of disrepair to start with.

Can't believe this shit-hole country was an actual threat ever.

Putin, your wasteland of a country is an barren as your brainpan. The horde of knuckledraggers your spurr on from the sidelines doesn't even like you. You are a joke.

They're a threat because they've always been both bellicose and nuclear armed. It's infuriating. Between warmongering and nuclear or horribly unstable and nuclear, I'm not sure if I'd rather have Russia or Pakistan.

Coming from a country bordering Russia and having had to deal with their bullshit for my entire life, the most frustrating thing about Russian bullshit is that if they could just be normal, they could be an actually wealthy and significant European country in a few decades. But no, they have always had this HUGE inferiority complex, which means that they need to continuously prove that they're great, powerful and important. And the only way they know how to prove their greatness and importance is to flex their "power" on their neighbors, including by militarily expanding their borders, while most of their "peer" countries (most importantly pretty much all of Europe) have moved on from this sort of view of being "powerful" after WW2 by the latest.

In a sea of uneducated and emotionally-fueled comments about Russia, this is one of the best I've seen.

They really could be a great country, they have the resources. It's deeply sad to me that they have a KGB/mafia thug and his klepto asshole mob ruling them instead.

while most of their “peer” countries (most importantly pretty much all of Europe) have moved on from this sort of view of being “powerful” after WW2 by the latest.

There was a point in time when most of the economy was in the primary sector. Fishing, mining, farming, etc. There, economic potential is generally tied to the land. If you can get control of land, you increase your economic potential. And there's a limited amount you can do to increase things otherwise. Farming has been around for (checks) maybe 13,000 years. The low-hanging fruit to improve things has been taken already -- it's not easy to improve things via just figuring out a way to farm better. So a lot of what matters, in such an environment, in terms of who gets money is who controls a given piece of land and can extract the wealth that it generates.

And so, for a long time, control of land was super-important. You had whole political systems structured around control of land, like feudalism.

Thing is that, subsequent to the Industrial Revolution, the secondary sector became dramatically more important. That's not bound to the land in the same way -- one can have a very large amount of wealth-producing economic potential even if one is, for example, sitting on a bunch of some rather small islands, like the UK was.

The primary sector still has a role, and there are still some places that can make some money from the primary sector and do fight over control of land, but in general, the incentives to fight over land are just a lot smaller.

You still need access to stuff produced by the primary sector -- if someone can cut you off from something that the primary sector produces, they can crater your secondary sector, which gives them leverage over you and thus the ability to extract wealth from you -- but then (a) transport got cheaper, which made it easier to get those inputs from other sources than nearby ones, and (b) the tertiary sector of the economy became more-important and further decoupled control of territory from wealth.

Economic potential is now more-linked to human labor (and especially skilled human labor). Thing is, human labor -- unlike land -- is mobile. If someone doesn't like how things are shaping up in a country, they might just leave and take the economic potential of their labor with them. Avoiding that, if your country is a really unpleasant place to be, requires setting up something like the Berlin Wall or like what North Korea has going on on their borders -- you jail your population, don't let people leave. That's kinda difficult and tends to have some pretty negative effects on the value of that human capital, since you may have to kinda cut it off from the outside world informationally so that you can tell it that things are way, way better locally and that that population definitely does not want to walk out the door, and not let them hear any information to the contrary. Access to information is kinda important for making people be productive, though, so if you want to cut people in the country you run off from the outside world to retain access to their labor, you're likely gonna have to do things that...decrease the value of their labor.

So I don't think that there was so much some dramatic shift in principles in Europe after WW2. It's more just that the world and political institutions were kinda catching up with present economic realities. The land being fought over just doesn't have the same kind of proportional value that it once did; the fighting was causing far greater losses than anything that one could win.

The Soviet Union invaded Finland in the Winter War. And they did take some of Finland's land. But...virtually everyone in the occupied territories left. So, sure, you get access to some land. But what's valuable isn't Finnish territory, but the Finns themselves. If you can't capture the Finns via an invasion, the land you slice off just doesn't have a lot of value.

For France and Germany, one concern had historically been fighting over land with coal -- not because they necessarily wanted the coal industry, but because they wanted to be able to have secondary-sector industries that depended upon coal. Creating the European Coal and Steel Community after WW2 meant that they didn't have to fight over it.

I don't think that governments have given up on being powerful (or, perhaps reducing this further, wealthy) at all. I think that they've generally rationally-recognized that in the present economic environment, lopping land off their neighbor generally just doesn't make a whole lot of sense economically. If you have a given amount of capital, you're gonna get a better return doing stuff like investing it in increasing your human capital, growing it, and retaining it than trying to slice some land off your neighbor, because that's not where the money is anymore.

That's just a function of labor -- especially skilled labor -- being the the bottleneck on production.

And I don't think that those basic economic realities are gonna change unless (1) the world sees an enormous increase in demand for some primary-sector resource, such that control of land containing it becomes critical again, or (2) something -- and maybe human-level AI could do this -- greatly reduces our dependence on human labor such that we have some new bottleneck.

Russia is pretty wealthy though.

Or more accurately, a few Russians are very wealthy

They're a threat because they've always been both bellicose and nuclear armed.

Ehhh, I dunno. Russia was a major power prior to the nuclear era too.

Like hell it was. It was a provincial backwater without culture or industry. The revolution didn't succeed because the country was well managed or capable. It was because it was rotting from within and couldn't even hold the Eastern Front with massive strategic advantages.

Okay, so, there's a bunch of stuff there.

First, I'd point out that a country can be a major power regardless of culture or the like, and we were talking about its military capability.

Even before we get into specifics here, I don't think that it's terribly controversial to say that Imperial Russia was considered to be a major power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_power

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medieval_great_powers

Grand Duchy of Moscow (1500)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_great_powers

  • Tsardom of Russia and Russian Empire (1547–1917)
  • Russian Empire and Soviet Union The Russian Empire as a state, existed from 1721 until it was declared a republic 1 September 1917. The Russian Empire was the successor to the Tsardom of Russia and the predecessor of the Soviet Union. It was one of the largest empires in world history, surpassed in landmass only by the British and Mongolian empires: at one point in 1866, it stretched from Northern Europe across Asia and into North America.

At the beginning of the 19th century the Russian Empire extended from the Arctic Ocean in the north to the Black Sea on the south, from the Baltic Sea on the west to the Pacific Ocean on the east. With 125.6 million subjects registered by the 1897 census, it had the third largest population of the world at the time, after Qing China and the British Empire. Like all empires it represented a large disparity in economic, ethnic, and religious positions. Its government, ruled by the Emperor, was one of the last absolute monarchies in Europe. Prior to the outbreak of World War I in August 1914 Russia was one of the five major Great Powers of Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

In 1944, during World War II, the term was first applied to the United States, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, the British Empire dissolved, leaving the United States and the Soviet Union to dominate world affairs. At the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States became, and remains, the world's sole superpower, a position sometimes referred to as that of a "hyperpower". 

The first Soviet nuclear test was in 1949. That stuff is all prior to that.

It was a provincial backwater without culture or industry

Was Russia relatively-economically-undeveloped compared to the other major powers in, say, the 19th century? Sure, I think that that's fair to say. The primary sector played a major role. But...that doesn't make a country or empire not a military power other then the extent to which it inhibits military capability. First, industrialization is a relatively-modern phenomenon; the Industrial Revolution only happened a couple of centuries ago. Prior to that, nobody had undergone that transition. But there were certainly powerful entities prior to that. And second, a lot of major powers, even if they had a fair bit of industrial capacity, also had a lot of areas that weren't all that developed. Like, okay, take the Brits. Parts of the UK were at the forefront of industrialization, were where the Industrial Revolution started. But...the UK also isn't the whole British Empire. The British Raj in what is now India wasn't terribly-industrialized either.

The revolution didn't succeed because the country was well managed or capable.

The communist revolution in Russia? I don't disagree -- I think it'd be fair to say that the revolution succeeded in significant part because people were unhappy with how the country was being managed.

But I don't think that one can say "The Russian Empire was pretty crippled during the Russian Civil War, ergo the Russian Empire never had influence on the region or world".

Saying that a political entity is a major power doesn't entail that it be an ideal country. It just means that it has significant influence around the world. It means that other countries need to care significantly about whether that country might intervene in a given situation.

Can't believe this shit-hole country was an actual threat ever.

We have representatives of the US political party leading for President right now echoing Kremlin propaganda on the floor of Congress and their candidate is cheered on and welcomed for saying he'll be a dictator who will undermine Western diplomatic relationships opposing Russia and would even encourage Putin to invade those countries, all while state level party representatives are literally saying that 'democracy' is a bad word that they oppose.

How the fuck is Russia not an "actual threat?"

There's more to modern warfare than nukes, missiles, and tanks. And by the end of November Putin stands a very good chance of having won the kind of megalomaniacal victory that Stalin or Hitler couldn't have possibly dreamed of.

Watch these drunks set off a nuke through incompetence.

Vlad took a swig of his “Coffee” at his station. His commander had said something about “make sure you use the drill launch codes during the test”

Vlad pondered the sticky note that had been on his work station since he got there. 2 lines of numbers written haphazardly on aging yellow paper loomed before him. Was it the top one that was real, or the bottom. Surely the drill code would be used more and should be on top. But the real code is more important, so it should be on top.

His radio chirped, and the angry voice of his commander squealed out. It was time.

He took a coin from his pocket and flipped it, tails, bottom code it is. He entered the numbers and hit the worn red button on his console.

As he heard the rumble of rocket engines from deep in the bunker, he knew his luck was as rotten as ever. He swigged his coffee one last time.

In fairness, there really was a Russian officer who had to decide whether to launch nukes during the Cuban missile crisis. Except he was told that WW3 had actually started.

He still refused to launch, probably saving humanity in the process.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov

How's that sweet Kremlin money for you?

They're saying that they hope the russian soldiers unintentionally detonate some nuclear ordinance while running drills and causes internal casualities.

Yeah, that what Kremlin bots are telling you to distract from the atrocities Russian army is committing.

Moscow plans to hold a military exercise simulating the use of tactical nuclear weapons

Is that everyone flee the country before they can retaliate?

I'll just leave this here.

Unfortunately, imo this does sound as the start a new serious escalation. I could be wrong, but they really don't like the continued support Ukraine is getting and want to stop that. Especially extra aid and maybe in this new phase , support coming from influx of extra military from abroad. Also, according to internal rumors in Russia, their war economy is slowly killing their home economy. Lots of domestic business are closing shop, and many people have been working in warfactories. Also when planes, trains and other stuff massively starts falling apart, something which already has been happening, they won't be able to maintain the supply lines. So probably very soon (summer) we'll see a very heavy offensive from 2 or 3 sides, and they really don't want extra trouble, as apperantly this wars costs are trememdous in their scale. The longer it takes, the lower the win chances for Ruzz will become, though I wonder atm, if anyone in the top even knows what their actual plans could be. I surely don't hope something like " If we can't have it, nobody will" , like Stalin did, and they'll turn the place into a wasteland.

Fyi via ap ap link "It was the first time that Russia has publicly announced drills involving tactical nuclear weapons, though its strategic nuclear forces regularly hold exercises. Tactical nuclear weapons include air bombs, warheads for short-range missiles and artillery munitions and are meant for use on a battlefield. They are less powerful than the massive warheads that arm intercontinental ballistic missiles and are intended to obliterate entire cities."

Predictions did say year 3 was the most difficult one. Support on Ukraine's side waning against Russia's economy crumbling. The one coming into year 4 surviving the attrition the best wins the war.

Threatening use of nukes is a decent scare tactic to make the western bloc hesitant to get more involved. Actually doing it would virtually guarantee the hammer was dropped on them.

You know what happened last time Putin rattled the sabers and held an "army drill" right next to the Ukrainian border?

Putin is crazy enough to try something stupid.

I love how angry people get due to Putin

Because you're a fan of authoritarian oligarchs who carve up their own country amongst other oligarchs and their corporations and is trying to turn Europe into a bunch of satellite oligarchies?