Russia moving nukes to Kaliningrad, suspends nuclear agreements with West

[Blue3]

Russia moving nuclear weapons to Kalingrad, suspends nuclear agreements

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/07/russia-moving-nuclear-capable-missiles-into-kaliningrad-says-estonia

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-nuclear-uranium-idUSKCN12521J

Millions of Russians are also engaging in mandatory emergency drills, on what to do in case there's a nationwide disaster.



It looks like Cold War II has begun.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Great, another crisis for President Clinton to bungle next year.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Putin needs to be stopped by any means necessary.

[DavidB.]

That's frightening.

[Blue3]

What is the new Cold War even about?

Russian nationalism versus the global order?

[Green Line]

This is not a new Cold War.  We need to stop treating Russia as a superpower.  They are not.  This is a declining regional power that is lashing out as it fades into irrelevance. 

[Blue3]

This is not a new Cold War.  We need to stop treating Russia as a superpower.  They are not.  This is a declining regional power that is lashing out as it fades into irrelevance.  

You don't need superpowers to have a cold war...

And declining regional powers lashing out can do a lot of damage, see: history.

[Seneca]

This is not a new Cold War.  We need to stop treating Russia as a superpower.  They are not.  This is a declining regional power that is lashing out as it fades into irrelevance. 

They have enough nukes to count as a superpower.

[Gunnar Larsson]

This is not a new Cold War.  We need to stop treating Russia as a superpower.  They are not.  This is a declining regional power that is lashing out as it fades into irrelevance. 

True, the Russian economy is not overly impressive.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Sure, Russia ranks higher when it comes to military expenditure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures, but still hardly enough to motivate any super power status.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This is not a new Cold War.  We need to stop treating Russia as a superpower.  They are not.  This is a declining regional power that is lashing out as it fades into irrelevance. 

True, the Russian economy is not overly impressive.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Sure, Russia ranks higher when it comes to military expenditure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures, but still hardly enough to motivate any super power status.

Of course it's impossible for Russia, with it's economy, to remain such a military power without really deep changes. But it's a great power, militarily, for now.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You know, as much as it pains me, I'm starting to think Romney was right about Russia.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You know, as much as it pains me, I'm starting to think Romney was right about Russia.

To be fair, things looked diffrently in 2012, but yes, Romney stated the obvious geopolitical trend.

And, for obvious reasons, I'm more and more concerned.

[Green Line]

You know, as much as it pains me, I'm starting to think Romney was right about Russia.

To be fair, things looked diffrently in 2012, but yes, Romney stated the obvious geopolitical trend.

And, for obvious reasons, I'm more and more concerned.

It apparently wasn't that obvious, since most people mocked him for it. 

[Storebought]

The Soviet government constrained the use of their nuclear arsenal for defensive purposes only, but the government of Russia today operates under no such legal compunction.

Just as those theater-scale maneuvers presaged their invasion of Ukraine, Russia/Putin is putting things into place (military and civilian) that strongly suggests Russia intends a nuclear first strike against the US and NATO (since the missiles moved to Kaliningrad can't reach the US).

Not that Putin needs a pretext to initiate any sort of aggression, but his stooge Trump clearly losing the election is as good as any other.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The Soviet government constrained the use of their nuclear arsenal for defensive purposes only, but the government of Russia today operates under no such legal compunction.

Just as those theater-scale maneuvers presaged their invasion of Ukraine, Russia/Putin is putting things into place (military and civilian) that strongly suggests Russia intends a nuclear first strike against the US and NATO (since the missiles moved to Kaliningrad can't reach the US).

Not that Putin needs a pretext to initiate any sort of aggression, but his stooge Trump clearly losing the election is as good as any other.

Frankly, I'm less worried about an immediate first strike than Russian forces employing tactical nukes, which would led to escalate things and... you know what.

Remember Russians views using tactical nukes as less of a threshold then the west.

Another thing that worries me is the possibility of one side launching a preemtive out of incorrect belief the second one is just about to do this. The Soviets were convinced NATO is about to do so during the Able Archer excercise in the 80s.

I can't believe we're really discussing it.

[Storebought]

Russia downplays moving nuclear capable missiles to Kaliningrad.

The Russians in this article repeat exactly the same arguments they did back in 2013 and 2014 over their mass maneuvers in southern Russia -- "oh, these are regular drills, not meant for provocation." Yet they haven't given any advanced alert of their drills to the governments of Poland or the Baltic countries in the way the US and Japan alert China of their joint naval exercises.

There is no way that these countries can perceive these Russian live-fire exercises right on their border as anything but threatening.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Russia downplays moving nuclear capable missiles to Kaliningrad.

The Russians in this article repeat exactly the same arguments they did back in 2013 and 2014 over their mass maneuvers in southern Russia -- "oh, these are regular drills, not meant for provocation." Yet they haven't given any advanced alert of their drills to the governments of Poland or the Baltic countries in the way the US and Japan alert China of their joint naval exercises.

There is no way that these countries can perceive these Russian live-fire exercises right on their border as anything but threatening.

It's been known for generations there is no better way to disguise troops deployment than going through "routine exercise." That's why the NATO was always concerned when the Warsaw Pact had their massive "routine exercises" in East Germany. That's why Moscow was jumpy during the Able Archer (which wasn't a large troops exercise, rather communications one, but still).

No, I don't expect Russian tanks rolling in any moment now, but this is definitively a serious case of sabre rattling.

[Bacon King]

The Soviet government constrained the use of their nuclear arsenal for defensive purposes only, but the government of Russia today operates under no such legal compunction.

It's worth noting that unlike the Soviet Union, the United States has never agreed to 'no first use' and that to this day, a preemptive nuclear strike has remained part of American military doctrine (and has been since WW2).

Current doctrine allows us to use nukes to "ensure US and international operations are successful". Not that this excuses Putin's aggressive posturing at all of course, but sometimes I wonder if global nuclear nonproliferation/disarmament efforts would be more successful if every nation could simply agree that they wouldn't start a nuclear exchange

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The Soviet government constrained the use of their nuclear arsenal for defensive purposes only, but the government of Russia today operates under no such legal compunction.

It's worth noting that unlike the Soviet Union, the United States has never agreed to 'no first use' and that to this day, a preemptive nuclear strike has remained part of American military doctrine (and has been since WW2).

Yes. Whether it was a "flexible response" or "massive response", the first strike was never ruled out. Out of current nuclear weapons state, only China, India and North Korea proclaimed an official "no first use" policy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interestingly, back in 1999 Germany proposed that NATO adopt a no-first-use policy, but the proposal was rejected.

The first use of nuclear weapons (whether tactical of strategic) was pretty much a cornerstone of NATO defensive strategy during the Cold War in Europe. Simply speaking no one believed the massive Soviet forces entering West Germany could be stopped relying on purely conventional means.

As I said before it's the Russian tactical nukes that worries me most, not ICBMs. Let's assume that in a case of some clash Russia uses low yield nuclear torpedoes designed specifically at destroying groups of enemy warships. A very limited use, but still it's the freaking nuclear weapon. And the Kremlin states all over again tactical nukes are not "off the table".

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Little off-topic, but as of North Korean "no first use" policy I actually don't worry about them ever launching their nukes. Their leaders are objectively horrible, but not stupid. Having nukes is ensuring the regime's survival.

What is dangerous about North Korean nukes is the possibility of selling technology to much less predictable countries. Hell, Pakistani missile program was possible due to North Korean assistance.

[Crumpets]

One fundamental difference between this and the cold war, though, is that during the cold war, the hot spots such as Berlin and Cuba were of a stature that made them indepensibly important to the US, while now we seem fairly content with letting Russia have its wars in Eastern Europe as long as they don't try to bother any NATO countries. What kind of conflict short of a total invasion by Russia of a NATO country would actually lead to full-on war, and what country would Russia be stupid enough (or suicidal enough) to invade? The incentives just aren't there.

The one possibility that comes to mind would be if The nationalist fervor in Russia boils up so high as to force Putin to invade the Baltics. But at this point, that seems a long way off, and Putin seems a bit smarter than to allow that to happen.

[Storebought]

Those troop and missile movements go beyond 'mere' sabre-rattling. Staging these things is expensive both in money and in 'face' -- can Putin afford to lose either if it becomes clear to the US, and to the Russians themselves, that these are just attempts at shadow-boxing the eastern NATO countries?

I've read Bacon's reply that modern Russia has redefined their first use of nuclear weapon policy to be more in accord with those of the US. That is true, except that what Russia considers a military threat has been considerably broadened as well.

According to what I can only call the Putin doctrine, any country hosting anti-Russian sentiment is itself already a belligerent and a legitimate target. Putin declared just this week that the US was stoking "russophobia" to an unacceptable degree -- the same claim they leveled against Georgia in 2007.

Putin is "speaking" to Russians in a way that is preparing them for actual war with NATO: the civil defense drills, the troop movements, flinging around the word "Russophobia", and above all else, the deliberate breakdown of communications with the US and the west to make a diplomatic resolution of the crisis (seem) impossible. Everything is running according to a script.