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

  • socsa@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 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
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

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

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

      Edit:

      Boomers: The Earth’s climate has always had mushroom clouds.

      Silent: Isn’t that something? Anyway, this relative you’ve never heard of had a baby, and it’s bingo night…

      The last 3 Greatest: Goddamn it, we were so close. Back to my youth, I guess.

      Don’t know where to go with Gen-X. Do they really exist? /s

      • Noodle07@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 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
          4
          ·
          2 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.

  • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    2 months ago

    The SECOND Russia uses nukes, it’s OVER. Russia’s entire existence ceases to exist, as EVERY country will nuke Russia. It won’t be WWIII.

    WWIII would imply two set of countries of roughly equal might, and each side has several countries fighting together.

    This would be more like EVERYBODY vs Russia. And they wouldn’t last more than a few days.

    • riodoro1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      Nato will write a sternly worded letter. Biden will SLAM putin for it. The EU will try to pass chat control.

      • chingadera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t think that everyone is ready to cry right after reading this comment. Pls delete

      • rusticus@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 months ago

        Ironically Biden was the one who knew Russia would attack Ukraine and spent MONTHS preparing Ukraine for it, which is why it wasn’t over in 3 days. We have also prepped for nuclear escalation. This is what real leaders do. Trump would just continue to give Putin a blow job.

    • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      We don’t need to nuke them even, we can just use conventional munitions to fuck up every military installation they have to rubble.

      And chuck a few Tomahawks at Kremlin to be sure

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        2 months ago

        If Russia uses their nukes, about 30 minuites later there won’t be a Russia left to sever ties with.

        • orclev@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          2 months ago

          China would just wait until it’s over and then pick through the remains of Russia. Probably try to claim a big chunk of southern Russia using some excuse or another.

          • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            2 months ago

            Well it’s not southern Russia’s northern China’s fault that some mad man in Moscow used a nuke. China will just be generous and help lead the clean up in wonderful north north China.

          • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Ehh. They’d make a beeline for every natural resource bearing region inside Russia’s borders. The whole south-western Russian region will turn into a clusterfuck free for all that I doubt they’d want to get involved with, but any mining and oil/gas centers east of the Urals will be priority one.

            Empty land is not terribly useful for China right now, although large portions of siberia will likely become arable in the next 50 years. but the dragon is always hungry.

          • rusticus@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            China would be dealing with nuclear radiation fallout across much of its country.

            • Nutteman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              Unless they are dropping ground detonations there wouldn’t me much. Most nuclear detonation would be airbursts because it’s more destructive than a ground blast. Ground blasts cause major fallout.

    • Sundial@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      74
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      The problem is Russia has the very real capability of really screwing up a good chunk of the world before they get wiped off the map. It’s kind of scary if im being honest.

      • andyburke@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        62
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        I would have believed you a few years ago.

        At this point I think Putin has to have serious doubts that he could use a nuke and have it actually work. He’s up against both western tech and his own corruption.

        • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah the problem is he only needs one to work. Even if it’s a dud Russia being nuked into oblivion will have long term ramifications for the entire globe

          • Breezy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yeah but it might humble the rest of the world a bit. No one will want to be next.

          • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            We don’t have to Nuke Moscow, to effectively nuke Moscow. We invented the MOAB just to be able to do that. They have to rely on the dirty version.

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Nukes and ICBMs are extremely complex devices. They also require extremely specialist servi e work to remain functional. Even worse, the only people who can actually check that work are the ones doing it.

        Russia hasn’t detonated a nuke in decades. I wouldn’t be surprised if most of their arsenal are now duds. The money embezzled, while boxes were ticked. Similarly, I wouldn’t be surprised if many of their ICBMs just wouldn’t launch.

        Russia’s nuclear capabilities are likely a paper tiger, and Putin likely knows this. Until they try and use them, they are scary. If they try and they fail, they are in a VERY bad situation.

        Putin is many things, but he’s not stupid. It would take a LOT more pressure from nato for him to even consider using nukes.

        • jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s kind of funny to me that a significant reason Russia is in its current predicament is because of rampant corruption. Putin runs the country like a Mafia state and then gets all surprised Pikachu Face when it becomes apparent that his underlings just stole all the money instead of using it to maintain their weapons stockpile, which is now aging and dilapidated.

      • odelik@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        44
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Do they really?

        They made a lot of claims about their military capabilities. However their war with Ukraine has shown those to largely be lies propped up to hide that their oligarchs have emezzled the money.

        I’m starting to wonder how nuclear capable they actually are these days.

        • yeather@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Of all the things Russia has spent money on, I have no doubts they have kept most of their nuclear arsenal in working condition. Even if they spent $0 on their military they would find a way to keep the nukes in working order.

    • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Unless the nuclear fallout is proven to effect a NATO ally and trigger Article 5, no one would give a shit if Russia nuked itself on its own territory. And no one other than the US can afford to unleash all of their their nuclear arsenal, costing billions of dollars and their only defense deterrence, in one go to light the powder keg and be left without nukes to defend themselves.

      However, you are correct, Russia would cease to exist if they retaliated disproportionately and a single molecule of NATO territory was effected as a result.

        • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          OK, I genuinely have no clue what got that post removed. If you’re gonna have your own magic dictionary of what’s allowed then you’re gonna need to let people know what are and are not the special “no-no” words. It wasn’t even an edgy comment, it was just calling out the Russian bullshit, or was that the issue? Gotta protect the Russian shills or something?

    • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      This would be more like EVERYBODY vs Russia.

      I do not share your confidence about that.

      Countries with nuclear weapons include China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and possibly Iran. And while I don’t think any of them want a nuclear war, if a nuclear war breaks out, I can imagine three or four of them siding with Russia.

      China might side with Russia simply because they’re sick of the US trying to hem them in militarily through the “island chain” strategy. The US has the entire coast of China surrounded by military bases, which could be used to cut off China’s trade routes, which is an existential threat to China because their economy is so dependent on exports.

      North Korea has a historical beef with the US, and Russia helped North Korea survive through a period when the US tried to starve them.

      India and Pakistan have a long-running dispute over Kashmir, and if India backs the US, it’s possibly Pakistan will back Russia just to oppose India.

      And Russia and Iran have been solid military and economic allies for a while now, working together in recent conflicts in Syria and Iraq.

      • chingadera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        If their intelligence agencies are worth anything, they would understand that any action unless directly against Russia would be suicide not only for them but also us. Nukes are a losing strategy no matter what.

      • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        The US has the entire coast of China surrounded by military bases, which could be used to cut of China’s trade routes, which is an existential threat to China because their economy is so dependent on exports.

        What is it with you people?!?!

        “it’s not fair that the US DARES to talk to other countries anywhere near us!?!?”

        This is the exact same excuse putin used for invading Ukraine, because no country is allowed to make their own decisions on who they talk to unless Russia and China get a veto.

        We have power they cannot begin to comprehend, they need to learn a lesson from Putin, “Don’t start nothin, won’t be nothin”, because if there’s one thing the US is famous for, it’s ending wars definitively.

        • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          “it’s not fair that the US DARES to talk to other countries anywhere near us!?!?”

          I don’t believe that’s what I said.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 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
      15
      ·
      2 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
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 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.

    • Random_Character_A@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      True. Dictators like Putin don’t usually retire, alive at least and the end is not usually pretty, so he hangs on, and on.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    2 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
    18
    ·
    2 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
      3
      ·
      2 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.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    2 months ago

    Putin, you can’t invade another country killing thousands of their civilians and then get upset when that country comes into yours and starts taking your territory. Using a nuke here doesn’t make you look strong, it makes you look extremely weak.

  • profdc9@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 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?

  • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 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?

  • mommykink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 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
      10
      ·
      2 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?

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 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.

  • Coreidan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Oh no he’s gonna write something on a piece of paper!!

    Still too much of a little bitch to ever use nukes tho.