...

Polish Foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorksi said a victory against Vladimir Putin’s forces would be swift due to the “overwhelming superiority” of its air forces, even without support from the United States.

“If Russia attacked us and we took our gloves off, I think we would defeat Russia quite quickly. We have overwhelming superiority over Russia in air power. General, correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s something like 2,500 aircraft,” he said during a discussion at the Yalta European Strategy meeting in Kyiv on Saturday.

“Even without the US it’s still overwhelming, and I haven’t checked recently how many F-35s and JASSMs and all the deep-strike capabilities we have.”

...

He went further to say that Poland could knock out half of Russia’s refining capacity in a matter of weeks. The comments were in relation to a potential conflict between Russia and Nato and not about the prospect of a direct war between Russia and Poland.

“But if the Ukrainians have knocked out half of Russia’s refining capacity in six months, we could do it in six weeks and take out the other half,” he continued.

Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova accused Sikorski of “Russophobia of the brain” in discussing the conflict.

Speculation has abounded that Moscow is plotting to attack Nato, claims that the country has denied.

...

Last month CIA director John Ratcliffe made a short trip to Moscow - the last time that a CIA chief visited the country personally was in the weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Several sources familiar with the discussions told CBS News that Ratcliffe had made the visit to warn Russia against an attack on Nato.

...

Archived

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -18 points 1 week ago (31 children)

No, it's a dumb statement. Russia has more than enough nukes to destroy the world. Such war has only one outcome.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Due to the decades of corruption where every levelwere skimming off money in the Russia army, it is legit doubtful that many, if any, nukes are still functional

    Remember that these devices, if ever used, will end the world and it doesn't matter. If someone is going to use them, they effectively will kill you. Does it really matter any lre that the nukes then don't work? What are they going to do? Kill you for that? You'd already be dead if they worked anyway.

    Nukes are extremely expensive in maintenance all year around, and its fairly easy and safe to just skip money off them.

    My bet is that most of their arsenal won't be able to go critical for an explosion any more

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago

    Even within the Russian armed forces, units responsible for maintaining and deploying nuclear weapons are considered a useless joke, which is saying something. The level of incompetence there is staggering.

    However, even if just one Russian nuke successfully destroyed a major Western population center, it would still be a gigantic humanitarian disaster, unlike anything we've witnessed since WW2.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

    Firstly: yeah?! So have NATO states. I don't like war either but if Russia attacks NATO directly, what would you suggest?

    It seems you have definite information about what Russia has and is up to! Please tell us where we can find it.

    edit:

    I'm getting replies that seem to assume that I just dismissed Russia as toothless. I haven't said that.

    I had a closer look at some articles about all that, and while most stick to the "official" numbers, and while it can be said with certainty that Russia has and is actively developing nuclear weapons, there is no definity about how many there actually are or if they are deployable or even working. Careful phrasing like "it is generally estimated" or "Moscow claimed" is prevalent.

    And that's the problem. As long as Russia is what it is we will never know. But they're not doing well and I think it stands to reason to assume that they can't keep it all in working order.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Are you serious? Feel free to read.

    According to a Russian military doctrine stated in 2010, nuclear weapons could be used by Russia "in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

    I know about that doctrine. It tells me nothing factual. It's the same threat & posturing they've been doing ever since '22 and possibly since Soviet times.

    That wikipedia article is very long; could you point out to me the bits where numbers provided by the Kreml have been independently verified?

    Particularly whether any of these warheads are known to be working.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    It only takes a few working for it to be a threat. We know of the USSRs tests and we know they have missile technology. What more do you need, to be hit by one?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago*

    Yes, take the word of a blohard country that constantly lies at face value. Russia has issued 135 nuclear threats against Ukraine since the beginning of its special military operation. However, not a single tactical nuke has been deployed yet.

    So imagine you're out walking in the street when some hobo bum rushes you tackles you to the ground and starts beating you while screaming about the gun in their pocket and how they're going to shoot you with it if you don't stop fighting back because that's what's happened for the last 3 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    It takes a hand to press the nuke button.

    Remove that hand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (15 children)

    I don't understand why are you being downvoted, it is a known fact russian have thousands of nukes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (13 children)

    Because some of us have experience in engineering and maintenance work. And some of us can look at the state of Russia's naval fleet and summarize that Russia hasn't had any money for basic maintenance and repairs for over 3 decades. Traditionally, a naval fleet is the Force projector of a military country. Because you can sail your ships right off the coast of your adversaries and show off. So one would conclude that if they can't even maintain the show Force then they probably can't maintain the hundreds of missiles that are capable of launching nuclear payloads let alone constantly refining new material and replacing the worn out fissile material.

    Paper tiger

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (12 children)

    based on your analysis, North Korea, which doesn't have a functioning country, are on a brink of famine and at least 50 years behind their next neighbors technology wise ( thats what we are being told) but somehow they are able, if needed, to drop a nuclear bomb? Seriously, you really believe that the russians wouldn't keep functioning nukes as a last line of defense? A bit naive I would say, but we will see it live if we live long enough. another point is this one https://www.icanw.org/nuclear_arsenals

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (11 children)

    Oh I'm sure they have 5 to 15 that can actually fire. But they never would fire them. France alone would clobber the shit out of them with their retaliatory strike.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (10 children)

    you are sure? thats enough for me, i can relax now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (9 children)

    That's why they call it an umbrella

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (8 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    When a storm comes, an umbrella keeps the rain from falling on you.

    France, being part of NATO, provides a nuclear umbrella for most of Europe. The kremlin won't launch nukes at any NATO member or ally, because it's the last thing it would ever do.

    Unless it's already in its death-throes of course. We'll see what happens when Putin gets old and senile and desperate to leave a "legacy"...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    nice of you to provide a context, no one mentioned france or umbrella earlier in the comments. were not discussing if russia was going to bomb a Nato member preemptively but defensively as a last resort, and i believe it will. also, there is not only Putin, as if there is not only Trump, it is an entire establishment behind them that works together.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    I literally said that France alone would clobber them with its retaliatory strike. France does not have a nuclear deterrence policy. France has a first strike policy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    no one mentioned france or umbrella earlier in the comments.

    Literally two comments above mine:

    Oh I'm sure they have 5 to 15 that can actually fire. But they never would fire them. France alone would clobber the shit out of them with their retaliatory strike.

    It's almost as if that's the exact context in which I left my original comment... Oh wait it is the exact context! Funny that...

    also, there is not only Putin, as if there is not only Trump, it is an entire establishment behind them that works together.

    Don't worry, if the kremlin attacks NATO we'll be sure to take all of them out too, we won't stop at just Putin 🤣

    I think you're underestimating what Polish foreign ministers mean when they say "taking our gloves off"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    none the less, it still pretty naive to think that russians dont have enough nukes in their arsenal. none of us knows it for sure, but the online data shows they do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    I mean I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket, but sometimes we have to tell ourselves things to make it easier to sleep at night.

    Russia's had nukes for decades. You can't stress about that night and day. Just be thankful that you can sleep under a France's nuclear umbrella, or Canada's, or whoever's.

    Chances are though, at least a few of Russia's nukes are unserviceable, and it's quite likely that the numbers they report are artificially inflated.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    30% of their population lives in two cities. St Petersburg and Moscow.

    It takes the far less to decapitate their country than some people understand. Country, not state, not heads of state.

    It changes the math significantly. They know it. That is why the huffing and puffing and end of the world psalms in the media.

  • source
  • parent