Russia’s Medvedev threatens nuke strike would turn Kyiv into ‘gray spot’ on the map (www.rferl.org)

submitted 1 month ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz 42 points 1 month ago

Medvedev found keys for the booze cabinet again? They seem to happily forget the fact that Moscow is well within reach of multiple Nato countries by now. Obviously a ton of things need to change before anyone with a gun is standing on a red square, but Finland, Sweden, Estonia and Poland (among others) are quite capable of hitting the Kreml (in theory, and in practise if needed) with fighter jets in less than 30 minutes. Additionally their ports opening to gulf of Finland are in reach of both Finns and Estonians with traditional artillely, and at least we in Finland are pretty capable and accurate with our hardware.

So, even if they find some old soviet relic still functional, Nato has multiple options to level multiple cities at Russia before their missile hits the ground. Nuclear attack against Ukraine would of course be a humongous tragedy with terrible price on civil casualties, but I'm pretty confident that it would be the last thing the Russia we currently know would do as a country.

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 23 points 1 month 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 8 points 1 month 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.

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Agree. Interesting points.

[-] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month 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 4 points 1 month 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.

[-] ms_lane@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

ie. Bunker Busting Nukes, not an airburst over a city.

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month 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

[-] kokesh@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago

I think single launch from russia would mean it's sure annihilation. So medvedev, I don't think so. Go and suck putin's dick.

[-] Blizzard@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 month ago

I think NATO wouldn't right away respond with their own nuclear attacks but Russia would suffer complete condemnation and ostracism on international stage and even their closest allies, including China would renounce them.

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 month ago

It wouldn’t have to be a nuclear retaliation. Once Putin opens the nuke door though, then NATO is all out of reasons to not mobilize all conventional resources and unleash hell.

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

If they open that particular box, the only option would be to strike against each nuclear site in Russia. Because once that started there is no reason the Russian threshold for usage would not just lower over time.

At the same time Ukraine would start striking nuclear power plants in Russia. Russia has a lot to lose here.

[-] Mirshe@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Additionally, with the firepower at just the US' disposal, we could level almost every major pop center in Russia. Waves of Tomahawks, ICBMs and bombers could do it without the US putting boots on the ground. We nearly did this with Baghdad back in 02.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

Unconstrained conventional warfare by NATO against all Russian forces in Ukraine, plus any staging or launch sites in Russia, plus destruction of any Russian military assets acting with hostile intent outside of the European theater would be the strategy, and it wouldn’t take long to fully crush their conventional military might. It would be an actual 3-day campaign.

[-] Hegar@fedia.io 20 points 1 month ago

This is quite reassuring - if medvedev said it you know there's no chance it could possibly happen.

[-] NoiseColor@startrek.website 15 points 1 month ago

He is a drunk that does this a lot. It doesn't deserve an article.

[-] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 5 points 1 month ago

if anyone could he could. oh wait gray. theres an r. oh then im not sure.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Dmitty gets a little angry when he drinks

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 3 points 1 month ago

Dimwitty Medvedev

[-] FelixCress@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

All Medvedev can do is try to find a gray spot in his trousers.

this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024

74 points (93.0% liked)

World News

38969 readers

2509 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.