Russian Threatens Ukraine with nukes

**Shuttlecat** · 15 Feb 08,, 03:17

I just came across this article. What is Vlady thinking?

Russia threatens nuclear attack on Ukraine - Telegraph

Russia has threatened to target the Ukraine with nuclear warheads if the former Soviet republic joins Nato and accepts the deployment of United States anti-missile defences on its territory.

Russia threatens nuclear attack on Ukraine
The Russian and Ukrainian leaders had just held emergency talks in the Kremlin

President Vladimir Putin of Russia warned Ukraine's leader Viktor Yushchenko of "retaliatory actions" should his country join the Western alliance during a joint press conference in Moscow.

"It's frightening not just to talk about this, but even to think about, that in response to such deployment, the possibility of such deployments - and one can't theoretically exclude these deployments - that Russia will have to point its warheads at Ukrainian territory," he said.

The Russian and Ukrainian leaders had just held emergency talks in the Kremlin to avert a energy supply crisis over Kiev gas bill - a similar dispute two years ago led to power cuts across Europe.

Mr Yushchenko responded to the Russian pressure by insisting on Ukraine's right to decide its own foreign policy while stressing that his country's constitution would not allow US military bases on its territory.
advertisement

"You understand well that everything that Ukraine does in this direction is not in any way directed at any third country, including Russia," he replied.

"We follow the principle that any nation has the right to define its own security. Our constitution does not allow deployment by a third country or bloc on Ukrainian territory."

Mr Putin has condemned Washington's plans to include Poland and the Czech Republic in a missile defence shield as a "new phase in the arms race".

Russia fears the shield will threaten its national security and tip strategic military balance in Europe.

"The goal [of the missile shield] is to neutralise our nuclear capabilities," said Mr Putin.

"This would prompt Russia to take retaliatory action."

Moscow has already declared that Russia will pull out of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), which came into force in 1992 and restricts the deployment of troops and tanks near sensitive European frontiers.

Last week, John Chipman, the head of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, warned that the "next target of Moscow's assertive revisionism "could be the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty of 1987.

Both would be moves that would allow Russia to build a new generation of medium-range nuclear missiles capable of striking Western Europe. As relations between Russia and many of its near neighbours deteriorate, Ukraine has submitted a formal membership request to Nato, to be considered a summit of alliance leaders in the Romanian capital of Bucharest this April.

Mr Putin has accepted an invitation to attend the meeting and Russia's parliament last month voted to stop using Soviet-built military radars in Ukraine because of Kiev's Nato ambitions.

The prospect of Nato membership is also deeply controversial in the Ukraine, where opinion polls show that over half of the country opposes it.

Russia has revived the long-range air patrols that were once a standard feature of the Cold War and US defence officials confirmed that a pair of Russian TU-95 Bear bombers overflew a US aircraft carrier in the western Pacific at an altitude of 2,000 feet (660 meters) over the weekend.

Four F-18 fighters jets intercepted the Russian bombers on Saturday morning, but not before they had overflown the USS Nimitz.

It was the second time since July 2004 that a Russian Bear bomber has overflown a US aircraft carrier.

It was not immediately known whether the United States issued any protests with the Russians.

**cuba** · 15 Feb 08,, 04:11

In my humble (and naive) opinion, he's just bluffing like any other leader has done or will do.

However, if this is his intent then what will be the consequences? Will this lead to WWIII?

**Shuttlecat** · 15 Feb 08,, 04:21

I agree, he's most likely just bluffing. But a bluff like that can quite easily turn into an unwanted situation.

**cuba** · 15 Feb 08,, 04:44

Originally Posted by Shuttlecat

I agree, he's most likely just bluffing. But a bluff like that can quite easily turn into an unwanted situation.

Ah well. We'll just have to wait and see.

Hasn't Count Vlad already cut off the Ukraine's vital gas supply from Russia?

I reckon that's the worst he has done and can ever do.

**~~Adux~~** · 15 Feb 08,, 05:29

He said, If Ukranie joins Nato and has NATO bases, then his missile forces will target Ukraine. How is that even suprising, What else is he supposed to do?

There is no futher need of NATO expansion, and this is stupid moves by the Americans to anatgonize the Russians, now more than ever we need the Russians to be on our side.

**T_igger_cs_30** · 15 Feb 08,, 05:32

Originally Posted by Adux

He said, If Ukranie joins Nato and has NATO bases, then his missile forces will target Ukraine. How is that even suprising, What else is he supposed to do?

Then Russia(or he) would be targetting all Ukraines NATO allies

**Dreadnought** · 15 Feb 08,, 17:51

There's a big surpise from Vladmir

, If they wont listen to you then threaten them with nukes. A true Russian strategy! And just where do you think the fallout will go if he was actually stupid enought to nuke the Ukrane?
Hint remember 1986. You already killed half of them once. How scared do you really think these people are of Putin and his powers.

**Dreadnought** · 15 Feb 08,, 17:58

Originally Posted by Adux

He said, If Ukranie joins Nato and has NATO bases, then his missile forces will target Ukraine. How is that even suprising, What else is he supposed to do?

There is no futher need of NATO expansion, and this is stupid moves by the Americans to anatgonize the Russians, now more than ever we need the Russians to be on our side.

Hmm could these "stupid moves" be based upon Russian "stupid moves" involving the ME and the weaponry they have been supplying and then again there is the nuclear fuel to the very same rouge nation that has one of our Allies in its sites to destroy?

Why do we need Russa to be on our side? They are only looking for their own interests and their actions in the ME and the block states only prove this. They can only control them through industrial needs not in negociation nor have they even tried to help these block states in any way short of cutting them off of oil or gas if they dont agree with Russia. No wonder why they want out. Wouldnt you?

By the way buzzing two of our Carriers in International waters is pretty antagonistic. It will only take but one slip.

**Kansas Bear** · 15 Feb 08,, 19:34

Originally Posted by Adux

There is no futher need of NATO expansion, and this is stupid moves by the Americans to anatgonize the Russians, now more than ever we need the Russians to be on our side.

So the Ukrainian government should not be allowed to make decisions for itself and its people?

As for 'stupid moves', Putin needs to keep a better handle on his polonium....

)

**Dreadnought** · 15 Feb 08,, 20:05

Originally Posted by Kansas Bear

So the Ukrainian government should not be allowed to make decisions for itself and its people?

As for 'stupid moves', Putin needs to keep a better handle on his polonium....

)

Bear,
You are not implying that those "exagerated prepostourous rumors" be true are you?

)

**Kansas Bear** · 15 Feb 08,, 20:13

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Bear,
You are not implying that those "exagerated prepostourous rumors" be true are you?

)

Of course not! You know you can buy that polonium at Wal-Mart!

)

**Dreadnought** · 15 Feb 08,, 20:33

Originally Posted by Kansas Bear

Of course not! You know you can buy that polonium at Wal-Mart!

)

) (Green light special)

**~~Adux~~** · 15 Feb 08,, 23:03

Originally Posted by Kansas Bear

So the Ukrainian government should not be allowed to make decisions for itself and its people?

As for 'stupid moves', Putin needs to keep a better handle on his polonium....

)

Oh, they can be all means, and Russia will target them. Isnt that the obivious. If Warsaw existed today, and Lets say Mexico joined it, Do you think Mexico City will not be targeted by the Americans.

**~~Adux~~** · 15 Feb 08,, 23:09

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Hmm could these "stupid moves" be based upon Russian "stupid moves" involving the ME and the weaponry they have been supplying and then again there is the nuclear fuel to the very same rouge nation that has one of our Allies in its sites to destroy?

The same could said of NATO as it is a direct threat to the Russians. Can we say the same thing about your support of Pakistan

Why do we need Russa to be on our side? They are only looking for their own interests and their actions in the ME and the block states only prove this. They can only control them through industrial needs not in negociation nor have they even tried to help these block states in any way short of cutting them off of oil or gas if they dont agree with Russia. No wonder why they want out. Wouldnt you?

Americans are no different than Russians. What was American Trump card to arm-twisting Economic Sanctions. We been at the reciving end, we know.

I would want Russians to personally be together in the same side, the enemy has moved to Islamic Radicalism and Chinese. Americans have been pushing Russians into corner, antagonize them. Showing absolutely no respect for their sphere of influence,

By the way buzzing two of our Carriers in International waters is pretty antagonistic. It will only take but one slip.

They are not exactly worried about Americans annihaliting them. MAD is still relevent. I suggest listen to rickusn.

**T_igger_cs_30** · 16 Feb 08,, 00:02

Originally Posted by Adux

Oh, they can be all means, and Russia will target them. Isnt that the obivious. If Warsaw existed today, and Lets say Mexico joined it, Do you think Mexico City will not be targeted by the Americans.

Warsaw