Putin is clearly the sort of man who will do whatever it takes. On the single proviso there's a good chance he'll get away with it. He's a gambler. Should he still be considering it (there have been many veiled and clear threats) I think there can now be no doubt in his mind that the benefits of using nuclear devices in Ukraine would be far outweighed by the consequences. One of which - reemphasised in the usual Chinese inscrutable way by Xi-Jinping at the G20 yesterday - was that his most powerful ally could effectively shut the door on even China's tacit support of the invasion.
Pyrpolizer wrote:So, are they trying to convince us they called the Russian head of FIA, to lecture him of the consequences of using nuclear weapons, while at the same time Stoltenberg points to never ending supply of the West's most powerful weapons to Ukraine?
but it also shows the importance of our continued support to Ukraine,” Jens Stoltenberg said in the Netherlands.
Sergey Naryshkin must have been very stupid to even have attended such a meeting.
"Lecturing" is your choice of word. I would opt - yet again - for making the cost of using nuclear weapons absolutely clear.
According to you it's taken the Ukranians 1000 of "the West's most powerful weapons" fired over a whole month in order to bring down a small bridge. Some weapons. Conversely, Putin it seems has supplied nuclear weapons to Lukashenko and the Russians are outfitting Belarusian aircraft to carry them. How does that measure on a "Supplying the most powerful weapons" scale?
