Russian officials have threatened that a possible decision by the West to allow Kyiv to use donated weapons to strike deeper into Russian territory would result in a major escalation of its war against Ukraine that could include the use of nuclear weapons.

Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, warned on September 14 that Kyiv could be turned into a “gray melted spot” if restrictions against Ukraine’s use of Western weapons were loosened.

  • GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Armchair speculation here, I do not think NATO would respond with nukes, but instead coordinated surgical strikes and special ops leadership decapitation.

    • IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      I agree with you, nuclear response would make things very difficult with China and their allies, but there’s plenty of traditional firepower available directed to Russia if things escalate to that point and should Russia attack with nukes I don’t think they’ll have a lot of support for their actions from the east. And triggering nuclear response would likely end up in a MAD scenario which is something I think (and hope) no one really wants to see trough.

      But that still leaves a pretty big field to work with traditional ammunition and a skilled pilot from Sweden could still reach Moscow in 20 minutes or so to turn multiple military targets within the city into a rubble. And there’s plenty of airfields closer than Stockholm with equally capable fighter jets. For the ground force, Finns and Estonians could at least in theory reach Moscow in 10-12 hours since majority of troops defending it are already down on some field in Ukraine and our artillery forces move pretty damn fast.

      The amount of destruction Russia could cause is of course still an enormous humanitarian crisis, but even if they could turn Kiyv to wasteland (and kill millions while doing it), it still wouldn’t change the outcome of full Nato response without any bullshit politics limiting on actions if anyone is allowed to strike on the Russian soil.

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

      Agreed. Not a big fan of military in general, but NATO probably won’t go straight to nuclear genocide, as much as some people around here seem to want that.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m pro NATO in so much as it means “don’t fuck with us”. I just don’t see the need, Russia is paper mache with their cold war bench depth of gear and routines.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Perhaps one or two as a treat.

        Jk but actually I think they wouldn’t, just to say they didn’t.

        I don’t think NATO needs them