1. The entire nuclear threat is like two people standing ankle deep in gasoline, one with one lighter in his hands, the other with two. One of the guys just threatingly took a step towards the other guy.

    Really doesn‘t change the situation much, does it?

    1. @Steen Romme No, but depends on the agreement reached. But agreements that involve nukes, allow complete control of that base.

    2. It does

      New rules
      Stay away ..I stay away
      Don’t do proxies
      I won’t do proxies

      Russia been complaining 20 years now
      Still no one listening

    3. @Pivo Taranka “…without reason.” Did you forget about Japan’s little “Special Operation” to take over the world?

  2. theres only one road to suply ammunition and whatnot and if its cut its gona be hard for the troops to resist the riptide

  3. Putin is now a bit reminiscent of the paranoid man who always picks fights in the pub and then shouts things like ‘stop me!’

    1. @skate and create are unreally want to find out?

      Even if its a bluff its still nuke, remember how usa and north korea?

      Even the almigthy usa cant do much when n korea make a bluff

      And now u saying russia bluff is empty? Are u insane?

    2. @K Webber He’s got around 1,500 operational, around the same as the US. The rest are in storage or slated for decommissioning.

  4. This is what happens when you ignore history and have no interest in peace.
    Does it really matter where anyone puts such weapons anymore? With subs I’m sure any first strike will be met with retaliation.

    1. @Harry Lippidardo so he didn’t want to take Kiev in three days then? He intended a limited ‘speshal hur durperation’ to last over a year and destroy his IFV and tank collection? I must have missed that statement 🤣🤣🤣🇺🇦♥️

    2. @Sig Ma I guess like a typical American you think only the US is backing Ukraine. Just so you know every first world country including the Swiss are backing Ukraine. Think about it Russia is so far in the wrong that the one country that stays out of everyone’s business is against them. The two other European countries that have for the most part tried to stay somewhat neutral, Finland and Sweden, are joining NATO.

  5. I feel so much better that they are only “tactical” nuclear weapons. However I’m keeping my nuclear fall out shelter well stocked.

    1. Why would you want to survive a nuclear war unless you got a system to help you survive indefinitely

    2. @Christopher Nieto i’m more concerned that my fall out shelter will be under water by 2013. Al Gore said that the ice caps would completely melt by then and the oceans would rise by 20 feet.

  6. I’m sorry if you feel sick As a person from the only country in the history of humankind to have suffered an atomic bombing, I hope that such a tragedy will never happen again. sorry if the translation is wrong

    1. We just need to get Trump back in office. He’ll get some peace negotiations on the table like he did last time.

    2. @Andrew Hitchcock He’ll get manipulated and open the way for Russian interference in US politics like he did last time.
      Ego driven people like Trump are easily manipulated. You just have to make them feel important. Putin and Kim Jong Un played him like a violin.

    1. @Josh Above ground too. Kazakhstan was basically a nuclear test site for Russia in the ’60’s

    2. @RobT And I was responding to Naseva…Yes if any country used a nuke against another country it would be the 3rd time in history.

  7. Can’t you just hear Putin in the future: “Don’t take it out on us. It was Belarus that launched tactical nukes.”

    1. ” Well now what happened is, one of our base commanders, he had a sort of, well he went a little funny in the head. You know. Just a little… funny. “

  8. The “tactical” part of the “nuclear” threat is significant for the degree of “proliferation” which applies to any understanding between Russia and the United States. Prior language for that “international law” measured the payloads of intercontinental missiles more rigorously than the deployment of tactical weapons involving nuclear energy. Thus this war which supposes a sovereign NATO opposed to any Russian Federation along these borders upsets the borders at the basis for that “territorial integrity” which applies to any peace negotiations.

    Putin’s agreement with Lukashenko is theoretically binding without Zelensky’s ministers denying the terms of that agreement are relevant to its reliance on foreign powers to secure its national claims rather than any sovereignty prior to Zelensky’s policies of martial law controlling its strategic intelligence. The nature of these tactical weapons is likely more interesting for NATO defense than their strategic purposes in Belarus. Allies are capable of agreements before they become guilty of plots.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.