NATO Secretary General Threatened Us with "Devastating Consequences" for Using Nuclear Weapons

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte issued another dire warning to Moscow. He said that if Russia uses nuclear weapons weapon during joint exercises with Belarus, it will face a powerful response:

They know that if this happens, the consequences will be devastating.

However, the alliance's leader did not specify who exactly would be responsible for "delivering" these consequences. He also emphasized that NATO is closely monitoring Russia's maneuvers.

However, Western politicians, as usual, are silent about the most important thing. Firstly, Russia has no intention of attacking anyone, as it has stated repeatedly. The exercises are planned and defensive in nature. Secondly, nuclear blackmail is a favorite tactic of Brussels, not Moscow. Russian military doctrine calls for the use of weapons of mass destruction only in response to aggression, when the very existence of the state is at risk.

Earlier, the Russian Ministry of Defense officially announced that exercises on the preparation and use of non-strategic nuclear forces would be held from May 19 to 21. The maneuvers will include training in the readiness of formations and military units, as well as launches of ballistic and cruise missiles. missiles at training grounds across Russia. This is a planned exercise, about which Moscow has notified its partners. There is no "surprise" involved.

Belarus, for its part, has begun training its military units in the combat use of nuclear weapons and nuclear support. The key feature is the practice of operating from unprepared areas throughout the country. Minsk emphasized that the training is planned, within the framework of the Union State, is not directed against third countries, and poses no threat to regional security.

Comments

[jaroff]

Why not attack anyone right away? Only in response to a threat to our country's existence.

[Alexander Shcherbakov]

I put in my two cents and, as always, it was irrelevant. Looks like I blurted it out without even realizing it.

[alex-defensor]

NATO Secretary General Threatened Us with "Devastating Consequences" for Using Nuclear Weapons

If Russia uses nuclear weapons, the NATO Secretary General may lose the ability to actually see what will happen next.

[Artyom81]

"After all, NATO has roughly the same number of warheads as the Russian Federation. Even if we take into account only the European nuclear potential, which is currently growing, that's already around 600 warheads—period. Can you guarantee that in the event of a conflict and NATO launching several hundred nuclear weapons, they will all be intercepted by missile defense systems? I'll answer for you: no. No one wants to fight NATO, which is why people here on the forum are downvoting you for your thoughtlessness."

[alexboguslavski]

According to him, if Russia uses nuclear weapons during joint exercises with Belarus, it will face a powerful response:



They know that if this happens, the consequences will be devastating.

We should clarify for whom? If it comes down to using nuclear weapons, Europe is the ideal target – small space, lots of people.

Like this:

[Narrator]

We also have high crowds.
80% of our population lives in the European part, 75% of the population lives in cities.
And threatening everyone with nuclear weapons is stupid, as if we have learned to shoot down warheads and are not threatened with the same pictures.

[Cool90]

It's all these Western homosexuals making these threats, Russia is just conducting exercises.

[agk1982]

They are all fools and homosexuals (that's absolutely a given).
Have you already defeated everyone with words?
Typical Kremlin-baiting. Although the guy could be writing from Israel and have nothing to do with Russia.

[Cool90]

So it wasn't me who won, but the Western homosexual NATO Secretary General who threatened

Well, it turns out you're just a regular piece of shit,

[agk1982]

So you're incapable of anything but insults. NATO is really scared of you.

[Cool90]

So it was you who started hanging labels, but for some reason you forbid me

NATO isn't afraid of me, but Russia's 6000 nuclear warheads scare the pants off them.

[agk1982]

No warheads frighten them for the reason voiced by Brzezinski.
Well, maybe, in the worst case scenario, the Kremlin will mount a retaliatory strike, but that's not a given. So, "your Western homosexuals" will cut us off piece by piece and devour us until they completely destroy us or until we have an elite that serves Russia, not the West.

[Cool90]

The homosexual Brzezinski can say all sorts of things, but Putin has no relatives or money there.
So Western homosexuals are yours, it's you who fight for them and bow down to all sorts of Brzezinskis

[agk1982]

Indeed, it is I who am preventing "your homosexuals," whom you serve, from destroying bridges and ports in the former USSR and starting to invest in Russia, instead of robbing it and exporting everything to the West.

[Cool90]

The man who suffers for Russia, as usual, is offended by Western homosexuals.

On the night of May 19, the port of Izmail in the Odessa region suffered a powerful blow. According to military public accounts, two powerful explosions occurred at the strategic facility, approximately 20 minutes apart.
Russian troops destroyed one of the key railway bridges near Odessa.

As of July 2025, 1,634 schools had been built, providing more than 1 million places.

In 2025, about 400 new facilities were created: feldsher-obstetric stations (FAPs), district hospitals, and medical laboratories.

[agk1982]

How you are for Russia with all your soul and heart, but from Israel, apparently, because you believe in false statistics that no one here has believed in for a long time.

[Cool90]

Have you surveyed all Russian citizens to be able to say with certainty that no one believes you?

Can you prove that these statistics are not true or that they just lied and ran away?

[agk1982]

Should we believe the official statistics? Are you even in your right mind? I'll blurt out here that we've seen growth. Do you believe it? Of course not.

[Cool90]

Before you disbelieve, provide evidence of the lie.

For some reason, you believe the official statistics of Western homosexuals. Maybe they don't have warheads.

[Nikolay A. Shadov]

Whose statistics does Messire believe in, and why them? Or does he maintain a direct connection with the Great Cosmic Mind, which knows everything and tenderly whispers this "everything" in Messire's ear?

[SAG]

Like this:

Not at all... Our modern warheads carry 750 kilotons each. Look at what's left of Hiroshima and multiply that by 50...
Like this:

[Mouse]

According to him, if Russia uses nuclear weapons during joint exercises with Belarus, it will face a powerful response:

And who will be left to answer?

[SAG]

And who will be left to answer?

Of course! Merz will be held personally accountable. He'll spit directly from the Maldives at Russia and where Europe was. (That's what he thinks.)

[Sensor]

And who will be left to answer?

The semi-mythical "Perimeter" system will respond. Putin claimed at a press conference that he had never heard of it. If, after signals from seismic and radiation sensors, abort codes are not entered after a certain period of time, strategic missiles will be launched at pre-selected targets.

"Guaranteed Retribution: How Russia's Perimeter System Works"
https://rg.ru/2014/01/22/perimetr-site.html

[paul3390]

If Russia does use nuclear weapons, Gayropa will no longer exist... And without mattresses, it really has nothing to respond with.

[agk1982]

France has four ballistic missile submarines. At least one is always on alert. The same is true for Britain. Although, supposedly, its nuclear weapons are not sovereign and are integrated into the US strategic nuclear forces. Even if they have a couple of submarines left, that would be enough to cause unacceptable damage to any major country. It would be enough to retarget everything left at large and medium-sized cities. If they retain their entire nuclear submarine force, that would be enough for two or three countries.

[yuriy55]

Quote: agk1982

The same is true for Britain. Although, supposedly, its nuclear weapons are not sovereign and are integrated into the US strategic nuclear forces system.

It's because of people like you that Britain continues to mess things up with impunity... And yet, it's the perfect target for the disposal of the "Voyevoda"...

[agk1982]

Oh, oh, how the "patriots" give minuses The mere mention of Europe having a response somehow triggers an allergic reaction in them. Or do you really think it's possible to destroy all of France and Britain's nuclear submarines? No one would allow a major war with Spanish nuclear weapons.
And why do you think that in the worst case, if something like this were to happen, they wouldn’t respond???
They'll definitely answer and won't mumble, "We're not like that." And please don't blame me for all the current Russian government's miscalculations and foreign policy failures. They're screwing us over precisely because our "elite" is dependent on the West.

[Cool90]

That's what your favorite Western homosexuals are threatening, and Russia is just conducting exercises.

[agk1982]

Russia has conducted numerous exercises in which it has used a quantity of all kinds of missiles sufficient to completely destroy bridges and ports on the outskirts (without nuclear warheads).
And homosexuals - about those who carefully preserve the bridges and ports of the former USSR and prevent it from collapsing.

[Cool90]

Western homosexuals are not allowing Pukre to collapse

You overestimate the power of conventional ammunition. For example, the US and the Jews used up 50% of their missiles and, in words, defeated Iran 10 times over, but in reality, the American fleet fled its bases and is drowning in shit.

[agk1982]

Let's write it down like this: "Western homosexuals" won't let anyone touch the bridges and ports in the former USSR.
This is pure insanity, right there for everyone to see. But go on about "your Western homosexuals."

[Cool90]

Western homosexuals supply air defense and other weapons; without the help of Western homosexuals, Ukraine would have been liberated long ago.

On the night of May 19, the port of Izmail in the Odessa region suffered a powerful blow. According to military public accounts, two powerful explosions occurred at the strategic facility, approximately 20 minutes apart.
Russian troops destroyed one of the key railway bridges near Odessa.

[ptt]

Quote: Kull90

Russian troops destroyed one of the key railway bridges near Odessa.

If you're talking about Zatoka, the bridge there is intact. Could you share the source for the bridge, if not Zatoka? I'm also interested? Where?

[Cool90]

The person above writes that they don't touch the bridges, but it turns out they are bombing them.

[ptt]

Quote: Kull90

The person above writes that they don't touch the bridges, but it turns out they are bombing them.

Bombed and destroyed are two different things. Don't you think? So where's the evidence? Any source will do.

[Cool90]

Not touching and touching are also different things, don't you think?

[ptt]

Quote: Kull90

Not touching and touching are also different things, don't you think?

In short, there's nothing to present! We'll just put it down that way.

[Cool90]

So, you wrote about the bay yourself, what needs to be presented if you already know

The person wrote that they don't touch the bridges, and it turns out that you and I
They proved that bridges are quite touchable

[ptt]

Quote: Kull90

So, you wrote about the bay yourself, what needs to be presented if you already know

The person wrote that they don't touch the bridges, and it turns out that you and I
They proved that bridges are quite touchable

At least learn to lie, activist! And you've dragged me into this. Tell me which bridge in the Odessa region was destroyed. Or just shut up, please!
Yours...
Russian troops destroyed one of the key railway bridges near Odessa.
Which ??????

[Cool90]

A person wrote that bridges are NOT TOUCHED, but you and I proved that THEY ARE TOUCHED

"The Russian Armed Forces have finally demolished the railway bridge in the direction from Odessa to Illichivsk (Chernomorsk) and Aleksandrovka in the Odessa region.

shut your mouth

[ptt]

Quote: Kull90

A person wrote that bridges are NOT TOUCHED, but you and I proved that THEY ARE TOUCHED

"The Russian Armed Forces have finally demolished the railway bridge in the direction from Odessa to Illichivsk (Chernomorsk) and Aleksandrovka in the Odessa region.

shut your mouth

There's no railway bridge there. The only railway bridge is on Zatoka. It leads from Belgorod-Dnistrovskyi to Odessa. We've been to Zatoka several times in the good old days while on vacation by car.
You're slippery, that's why people don't trust authors like you here. You lie like you breathe. Keep breathing!

[Cool90]

There is a photo of the destroyed railway bridge, but you say there is no bridge.
Well, people like you don't even have a Crimean bridge.

The "Typical Odessa" public group published footage of the railway bridge between Aleksandrivka and Illichivsk in the Odessa region, which was destroyed by a Russian military strike.
The missile struck the locomotive as it crossed the bridge. The bridge supports are still standing, but the track itself is destroyed.

[Vik_Vik]

You're absolutely right. The option of equipping missiles that have reached the end of their service life with non-nuclear warheads and conducting a combat training launch against bridges is entirely feasible. I'm a former air defense officer myself, but I've discussed it with strategists. They say it's possible.

[TOR2]

Or do you think it is possible to destroy all the submarines of France and Britain?

Why bother? It's easier to make the island uninhabitable. And you only need a small number of warheads for that. Where will they go then? To Argentina? The Sarmat will easily reach Argentina. No country will need such gifts. Our guys will catch them and kill them anyway. High-stakes gambling means nothing else. It's highly likely that the submarines will retreat due to a "technical malfunction."

[agk1982]

Science fiction. Hurray-patriotism. I love science fiction.
90% of the comments are hilarious and giggly - we'll give Europe a nuclear blast and nothing will happen to us. Why feel sorry for Europe?
It reminded me of something like "With Little Blood..." before the Great Patriotic War, or the "Russian steamroller" before the First World War - rolled over like a steamroller?
There is no need to run anywhere, they will simply fire all their ammunition at us.
But go ahead and joke, laugh like horses. You're obviously not writing from Russia; you're obviously having a lot of fun "there."

[TOR2]

Science fiction. Hurray-patriotism. I love science fiction.

Do you like documentaries? One of the documentaries (shot in the West, by the way) actually discussed the "Dropshot" plan. The developers actually encountered an interesting phenomenon. The pilots were discussing how to land at their airfield at zero o'clock due to a technical problem, rather than fly east. And this fact was reflected in the film. Again, high-stakes games, if they come to that, involve unexpected twists. Judging by the cons, you're not the only one who loves science fiction.

[aybolyt678]

Quote: agk1982

They'll definitely answer and won't mumble, "We're not like that." And please don't blame me for all the current Russian government's miscalculations and foreign policy failures. They're screwing us over precisely because our "elite" is dependent on the West.

Your comments are highly questionable, except for the last one—about our elite's dependence on the West. One of the conditions for Russia's use of nuclear weapons is aggression against Russia and/or Belarus using conventional weapons, posing a critical threat to their sovereignty and/or territorial integrity. Apparently, 20% of our oil refining isn't considered a threat to sovereignty.

[SAG]

Welcome to the bullying reality club, colleague.
The pendulum in VO is stuck in the far right position; here they like arguments in the style of "let's throw hats at you"
You've only scratched the surface of this information))) They've thrown all kinds of dirt at me for my objection that Iran isn't capable of sinking all the ships in all the US fleets) ))))
I had no other reaction except Homeric laughter😂

[agk1982]

Remember the little bloodshed on foreign soil or the Russian steamroller before WWI.
Judging by the glee with which these "patriots" are planning to destroy the EU or just a few countries without a response (they will certainly leave everything unanswered and capitulate), they are either Western provocateurs deliberately portraying Russia as the aggressor or are completely out of their minds – one of two things.

[SAG]

Apparently, the consequences of the educational process of the 90s and skipping history lessons are making themselves felt.
There was an article recently where a former American military officer suggested Russia hit Europe with a conventional missile and see what the reaction would be! I nearly got eaten alive for pointing out the sheer stupidity of that proposal! The local audience is convinced that this will bring Europe to its knees and agree to any peace deal. 🤣🤣🤣 Want the link? You'll have a hearty laugh, I'm sure!

[agk1982]

That's exactly what they need. Provocateurs are leading the country to slaughter for the sake of enriching the Anglo-Saxons, and they, like sheep, fall for it and hoot, "Now we'll give those Germans or Poles, and then the Brits and Franks." Either they're provocateurs from England and Israel, or they're sick.

[SAG]

Work is underway, big money is being thrown in – and it's exchanged for worthless comments and dislikes😂
Don't bother, that's my advice, and don't "cast pearls before swine." If even one decent person can find anything useful, I'll be leaving informative comments on this site.

[ex_paragon]

Yes, it will work out very well. A rocket will fly in unnoticed behind the squeals of the Ukrainian pigs.

[Jose]

Which specific members of Russia's top leadership currently have children and property in the West? Proof, please.

[Narrator]

It's a myth that after a nuclear strike, there will be no response. Anything will happen; nuclear warfare isn't 100% annihilation.
That's why you write nonsense.

Let's even imagine we've inflicted maximum damage. France and Britain are boasting of warheads capable of obliterating Moscow and St. Petersburg, and a couple more cities with over a million people as a bonus.
Does such a sacrifice build?

[SergeyB]

Quote from Narrator

Let's even imagine we've inflicted maximum damage. France and Britain are boasting of warheads capable of obliterating Moscow and St. Petersburg, and a couple more cities with over a million people as a bonus.

And the question immediately arises: Why would France and Britain use their warheads against us?
Let's imagine: We launch dozens of nuclear strikes on Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic.
We're not bothering France and Britain. So why would these countries attack us with their nuclear weapons? Otherwise, we'd simply destroy them.
This means that France and Britain will have a choice:
1) Do nothing. And live long, happily and richly.
2) Hit us. Die.

Why do you think that, in the absence of a direct threat to their countries, the leaders of France and Britain will decide to take actions that are absolutely guaranteed to lead to the immediate demise of these countries?

[agk1982]

The Atlanticists would sacrifice a couple of countries without hesitation. Strategically, this is entirely advantageous for them—further demonization of Russia.
And the question is—regarding the possibility of Germany acquiring its own nuclear weapons and acquiring several dozen nuclear warheads (they'll be provided with missiles, rest assured)—are you really going to destroy Germany? It's not now, but it could very well happen in two or three years. They could simply give Germany 50-100 warheads on missiles aimed at our cities. Will you destroy everyone again, Germany, France, and England?

[SergeyB]

Quote: agk1982

The Atlanticists would sacrifice a couple of countries without hesitation. Strategically, this is entirely advantageous for them—further demonization of Russia.
And the question is—regarding the possibility of Germany acquiring its own nuclear weapons and acquiring several dozen nuclear warheads (they'll be provided with missiles, rest assured)—are you really going to destroy Germany? It's not now, but it could very well happen in two or three years. They could simply give Germany 50-100 warheads on missiles aimed at our cities. Will you destroy everyone again, Germany, France, and England?

What are you talking about!?
We were talking about the current reality. And a situation that could actually happen (we launch nuclear strikes on Eastern and Central Europe. Will France and Britain then launch a nuclear strike on us? Judging by the way you ignored the question, you yourself understand that there won't be a strike on us).
For some reason, you started fantasizing. But someone could transfer missiles and warheads to Germany. There's a lot you can imagine. But...
If Germany receives warheads from outside, then any separatists or terrorists in France or Britain will immediately receive warheads as well. Everyone understands this perfectly well. And that's why no one transfers their nuclear weapons to third countries. And that won't happen in the future.

[agk1982]

A naive belief in the honesty of the West that “this will definitely not happen.”
Perhaps rational Germans simply began shifting their businesses to a wartime economy? Perhaps the idea of ​​Germany acquiring nuclear status was also a coincidence?
The West will do anything to gain access to Russia's vast resources. Western countries have repeatedly violated treaties and promises on missile defense, non-expansion of NATO, the Minsk agreements, and so on... They need to devour someone to overcome the latest crisis of the capitalist system. The West has always unleashed wars in such situations. Where does this naive faith in the West's honesty come from? Where does it come from?

[SergeyB]

Here again I received a stream without coherent sentences and fantasies.
But we were discussing a very specific issue: whether France and Britain would launch nuclear strikes against us. And it turns out they won't.
That is, we could easily destroy military installations in several Eastern and Central European countries with nuclear strikes. And force the leadership of these countries to effectively capitulate. Consequently, supplies across these countries' borders with Ukraine would be cut off. And subsequently, Ukraine would collapse, because without external assistance, Ukraine would quickly collapse.
And neither the US, nor France, nor Britain will do anything to us except verbal condemnation.

[agk1982]

Your reasoning is very coherent. Can you predict in what cases France and England won't launch nuclear attacks on us, and in what cases they might?

That is, we can easily destroy military installations in several Eastern and Central European countries with nuclear strikes, and force the leadership of these countries to effectively capitulate.

How simple it all is! We'll just destroy the bases in the aforementioned regions of Europe and "win." Yet you yourself openly say that the main Western countries standing behind the Eastern satellites will remain untouched. That is, they won't "capitulate." Why would countries "treacherously" subjected to nuclear attack, with the support of the old European powers, suddenly capitulate?
The fall of the former Ukrainian SSR can still be ensured without the use of nuclear weapons, simply by disabling all bridges, ports, and tunnels. The only problem is those who, for whatever reason, fail to give the order to destroy them.

And everything can be resolved without nuclear weapons and the complete demonization of Russia, when they will pin everything and everyone on us and give the West a trump card, when their use of nuclear weapons against Iran or North Korea will be secondary.

[SergeyB]

Quote: agk1982

Why would countries that were "treacherously" subjected to a nuclear attack with the support of the old European powers suddenly capitulate?

And after launching nuclear strikes on this country's military facilities, we'll announce that we'll destroy its capital within 48 hours. And we'll give them 48 hours to evacuate the civilian population (we're not monsters, after all. But if there's a war, we have to win, and to do that, we have to fight to the end). After that, we'll destroy the largest remaining city every 12 hours. And how will the support of the old European countries help them if, in a couple of weeks, they won't have a single city left?
And the fact that cities themselves are legitimate military targets was confirmed by NATO (Yugoslavia) itself. And the nuclear dawns over Hiroshima and Nagasaki also contribute to this. If they can, then so can we.
So, a country can very easily and at any time stop the destruction of its cities. It simply needs to stop fighting Russia, and then Russia will stop bludgeoning that country with nuclear weapons. But I believe that if a country finances military action in Ukraine, supplies it with free weapons, and builds military factories on Ukrainian orders, then that country is de facto waging a war against Russia.
And the hypothetical Czech Republic, Poland, and Germany will have two options:

1) Accept Russia's conditions (severing all ties and contacts with Ukraine and completely closing the border with Ukraine). Immediately begin implementing them. Grant Russia the ability to freely monitor compliance with these conditions.
As a result, they could preserve everything they had at that time. And even increase it. After all, the money they were forking over to Ukraine could now be spent on themselves.

2) Reject Russia's conditions. And with the full support of old Europe, lose all the cities. That is, lose everything.

I wonder what they will choose.

[agk1982]

Firstly, you're leaving the old powers, England and France, with their nuclear weapons, behind. Quite "elegant." Should they also capitulate immediately?
Secondly, you first proposed destroying military facilities, and now you're proposing the mass destruction of cities in European countries!!! What a mess!
Thirdly, given the events of recent years, it's not clear that our nuclear weapons are sovereign at all. Even bridges and ports, where nuclear weapons are not needed, are left untouched.
Fourthly, you are essentially proposing that Russia start a full-fledged nuclear war when other means are not involved (bridges, etc.), portraying it as a fiend.
Fifth, it feels like the "patriotic" comments under this article are being written by one, or at most two, people with a generator of accounts and likes, and they're clearly not from Russia. They're having too much fun and are eager to push Russia into a bloodbath with Europe.
And yet, there's not a single answer to the question: what if they respond? What if they give Germany nuclear weapons? Germany can build them itself in a few years. What if France or England get involved?
Of course they are fools, but we are smart.

[SergeyB]

Quote: agk1982

Firstly, you're leaving the old powers, England and France, with their nuclear weapons, behind. Quite "elegant." Should they also capitulate immediately?

That's odd. After all, your first few comments were about French and British nuclear weapons. Read them again.
Naturally they will not capitulate, because we will not fight with them.
We need to force the countries bordering Ukraine to capitulate, so they completely seal off that border. We will close the sea route to Ukraine ourselves. We will declare that any vessel entering Ukrainian waters will be destroyed. This is easy to do with aircraft. This will place Ukraine under a complete blockade.

[SergeyB]

Quote: agk1982

Secondly, you first proposed destroying military facilities, and now you're proposing the mass destruction of cities in European countries!!! What a mess!

Yes, everything is fine with me!
There's something wrong with you.
Let's remember how many Russian missiles and drones attacked Berlin, Warsaw, Prague?
No one.
And how many missiles and drones, manufactured or paid for in Berlin, Warsaw, and Prague, are attacking Russian cities?
The total bill probably runs into the tens of thousands over three years. These countries have been manufacturing munitions for several years. They train Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel on their soil. They pay them specifically for launching these munitions at us. Using the coordinates they themselves provided!
I believe this is a completely open and unmotivated attack by these countries on Russia! After all, I repeat, Russia has never attacked any of these countries. We don't need anything from them at all! But they have been systematically and for a very long time at war with us. And most importantly, they have no intention of stopping in the foreseeable future. On the contrary, they are openly escalating their military aggression against us.
I believe that several years of waging war against us (with a complete lack of similar measures on our part), completely ignoring warnings about the consequences (with quite understandable nuclear hints), gives us the right to fulfill our promise. A nuclear promise.
And then, you most likely misread what I wrote again. I propose launching nuclear strikes against military targets. After that, warn them that if these countries don't cease military action (which they've been waging against us for years now), we will begin destroying their cities. And if in response we hear: "We'll still fight you!" then, naturally, we must keep our promise. After all, if these countries have launched military action against us (even though we haven't attacked them), if, despite nuclear strikes and the promise to destroy their cities, they still want to continue this war, then they are complete psychopaths. And we simply MUST make sure these psychopaths become poor and toothless. Not dangerous.

[aybolyt678]

Quote: agk1982

Where does this naive faith in the West's honesty come from? Where does it come from?

Honesty and fear are two different things. After WWII, Germany kept quiet for a long time, producing Mercedes, and doing quite well. Now, years have passed, the people's memory has faded, and migrants have diluted it, and Ukraine, which they despise, is quite successfully waging war against Russia. So the Teutons are itching to get their hands dirty.

[Jose]

There are American, British and French bases in Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic.

[alexboguslavski]

Quote from Narrator

France and Britain praise warheads to wipe out Moscow and St. Petersburg

I wonder what Russia's 4309 nuclear warheads will be enough for, compared to France and Great Britain's 515 (this is without taking into account the TNW). Expand the English Channel to the Mediterranean, or offer excursions in the future (if there are excursionists). ) wreaths with the inscription will be lowered onto the sea Great Britain was here?

[Sergool]

It was correctly stated above that our opponents are already confident that Russia will never use nuclear weapons under any circumstances. We're not even drawing red lines anymore.

[HAM]

Damn clowns: "...the consequences will be devastating..." - for whom?? Who will create the "consequences"?
And in general, it seems that they want to hear from us again "that we are not like that!", so that, relying on our constant justification, they can become even more impudent... these justifications are presented in full in the article.

[agk1982]

In my understanding, they're deliberately creating a media frenzy about nuclear weapons, primarily to prepare the Western population for the possibility of their use. The Westerners themselves could detonate a tactical nuclear weapon over Rzeszow, for example, and guess who they'd blame? The West doesn't need any excuses or concerns. Right now, the Germans and Poles are conducting intensive and open preparations for war. They wouldn't do this just like that, especially in a crisis. It's still too early to detonate anything, but gradually, the media frenzy is building, and another overt window is opening...

[ramschel]

It is better to use it above Brussels.

[alexoff]

Is he nuts? When was the last time nuclear weapons were used in an exercise?

[alexboguslavski]

My father took part in exercises at the Totsky training ground in 1954. I don't remember him alive, only from a few surviving photographs. He was a dandy with a forelock draped over his cap with a "bird" insignia, captain's shoulder straps, and three Orders of the Red Banner on his chest. For a long time, he was, to me and to those around him, a test pilot who died while developing new jet aircraft.

[nik-mazur]

Quote from alexoff

Is he crazy?

Were there any doubts? Everything has been clear with this Secretary General for a long time.

[K-50]

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte issued another dire warning to Moscow. He said that if Russia uses nuclear weapons during joint exercises with Belarus, it will face a powerful response.

What kind of moron do you have to be to suggest the use of nuclear weapons during exercises!!!!
It seems their roof leaked back in pre-Christian times and hasn't found its way home since then.

[SAG]

What kind of moron do you have to be to suggest the use of nuclear weapons during exercises!!!!

After Baerbock, who told you how they fought with tanks in the 19th century, is there anything else that can surprise you in the realm of ignorance of European puppets?

[Hagakure]

The saddest thing about this is that they stopped being afraid...

[Cool90]

Why then these hysterical squeals of Western homosexuals at our simple teachings?

[Sergey39]

There's nothing to comment on here. Rutte remains a "suitcase" as always. His military illiteracy is obvious.

[agk1982]

His goal is to demonize us as much as possible. When Euro-NATO completes its rearmament, Russia will be blamed for all the troubles. Given the aggressive brainwashing in the West, this all fits perfectly into their plan for a new Drang nach Osten. And anyone who protests will be branded Russian agents and suppressed.

[D16]

When EuroNATO completes its rearmament, Russia will be named as the main culprit of all the troubles.

In the meantime, Kaya is indignant:
https://www.osnmedia.ru/world/glava-diplomatii-es-kallas-oboronnaya-promyshlennost-evropy-buksuet/
She stimulates, but it doesn't grow. .

[nik-mazur]

Quote: agk1982

their plan for a new Drang nach Osten

Could you tell me where I can find out? I'd like to understand why they need this.

[axren1]

Those who were afraid of Iran are heroes, look...

[ximkim]

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte issued another dire warning to Moscow. He stated that if Russia uses nuclear weapons during joint exercises with Belarus, it will face a powerful response:

NATO doesn't have to worry at all; it's better if they send good doctors to the Kremlin to prolong Putin's life.
So that he runs for election in 2030 and 2036, and then, under his leadership, the loss of control or the transfer of nuclear weapons to other countries is a matter of time.
And this is not trolling or anything else.
This is a terrible future, and Crimea and the LPR and DPR, Kharkov and Zaporizhzhia are already witnesses to the coming future.

[Cool90]

It seems like you're writing under the influence of drugs.

[agk1982]

It's ridiculous, the jingoistic patriots in the comments. How could they destroy the EU so quickly that France and England would have nothing to respond with? What a fool Rutte is! And all this while the Strange Operation is in its fifth year, when they don't even dare touch bridges and ports. All this against the backdrop of a Second Verdun in Donbas! Just read something about France and England's nuclear weapons and answer the question for yourself: do they have anything to respond with?

[Cool90]

At least read the article
In the article, it's Western homosexuals who are making threats, while Russia is conducting routine exercises, and it's Western homosexuals who need to read this and find out which country has 6000 nuclear warheads.

[agk1982]

So you from Israel know better.
And how many warheads do your homosexual masters have?

[Cool90]

So it was you who were offended on behalf of Western homosexuals and rushed to fight for the master's
Why from Israel?

and before you start fighting for what's yours, you should still read the article

[agk1982]

Why from Israel?

Because there are no such things in Russia...

[Cool90]

Were you able to go around all of Russia and interview everyone to determine which ones are missing?
Well, you fought bravely for Western homosexuals, you're probably one of those...

[agk1982]

I see you're really fixated on the topic of homosexuality for some reason.

[Cool90]

What does this have to do with being so fixated? I'm just stating the facts as they are (as of January 2025, 22 European countries legally recognize and conduct same-sex marriages). And you're offended for some unknown reason...

[agk1982]

I'm not offended. Imagine that. But these militant "internet patriots" who are crushing the West, gay or not, in one fell swoop... they're just something else.
Let me remind you about "your" 6 warheads—the USSR had far more of these warheads. Where is the USSR now? Will you answer? Did the warheads and the accumulated tank armadas help?

[Cool90]

We're discussing an article in which a Western homosexual NATO Secretary General threatens to defeat us with his hats.

[agk1982]

Actually, you're bringing up something about 6,000 warheads. We have fewer strategic warheads. Maybe you can even find out how many there are under the New START Treaty, which only defunct relatively recently. And NATO probably doesn't have anything? They're just homosexuals and stupid!

[Cool90]

Russia remains the world's largest nuclear power, with FAS estimating its arsenal to be between 6200 and 6300 nuclear warheads.

It was you who started bringing up 200 warheads from France and England in the article where a Western homosexual threatens
And where did I write that they have nothing?
They are gay and stupid

[agk1982]

How did you calculate everything?
Intelligence test.
Are only France and England members of NATO? Or are there other nuclear powers there too?

[Cool90]

So you brought in France and England,
There's also the US with bombers from the 50s and missiles from the 70s that fly every other time.

[agk1982]

Yeah, I see. You cleverly deprived the US of a combat-ready nuclear force and put an end to NATO with words... with your tongue!

[Cool90]

Am I wrong somewhere?
B-52 main bomber = Entered service in February 1955.
Minuteman 3 The missile was accepted into service with the US Air Force in 1970.
The United States unsuccessfully tested the Minuteman III intercontinental nuclear missile, destroying it in mid-air due to a test anomaly.

[Cool90]

In 2016, a launch failed when a missile fired from HMS Vengeance veered off course and self-destructed.
On January 30, 2024, during exercises off the coast of Florida, a Trident II missile launched from HMS Vanguard also fell into the ocean just meters from the submarine. According to the UK Ministry of Defence, "an anomaly occurred" during the launch.
According to some data, the overall failure rate of British Trident missile launches has reached 16%.

[agk1982]

It's all interesting, but "your homosexuals" are constantly upgrading their missiles. Like the Minuteman 3. But the Trident 2 is newer and less prone to malfunctions.

[Cool90]

Trident 2 was reliable, but recent launches indicate that they are rotten.

Bulava, Yars = produced in 2010 - new

[Jose]

The USSR was destroyed by the incompetence and moral decay of the ruling elite.

[ptt]

Quote: Kull90

At least read the article
In the article, it's Western homosexuals who are making threats, while Russia is conducting routine exercises, and it's Western homosexuals who need to read this and find out which country has 6000 nuclear warheads.

Are you sure we have these warheads? More than half of them are just mockups, and the money has already been deposited. No one ever thought it would come to this, that we'd have to count the warheads.
That's why it was possible to pinch them, because no one would check whether they were working warheads.

[Cool90]

Yes, nothing, victory

Are you sure that NATO has warheads, and that no more than half of them are mock-ups, and the money has been received.
According to the Daily Ticker, the Reuters investigation revealed that 8,5 trillions of dollars - from taxpayers' money - allocated by the Pentagon Congress, starting with 1996, have never been taken into account.

and the warheads were counted by an American organization, not our *false* sources

[SAG]

Want to get likes? Join the club of "those who love simple solutions to complex problems!"
By the way, Hitler once came to power heading this club!

[Alexey Sergeev]

If we wanted to act decisively and decisively, we would have used nuclear weapons without threats. If you threaten, be 100% prepared to turn the threat into action. But we've already made so many empty threats and warnings, followed by nothing, that they no longer take us seriously. And they know full well that none of our leaders will use nuclear weapons in Europe and/or the UK. Many have children living and studying there, many have loved ones and property there. They're not crazy enough to destroy their own family members and everything they've earned through hard work. And, generally speaking, Putin values ​​friendship and doesn't betray his own. The former director of Rusnano will tell you that.

The pot with the frog had been on the fire for a long time now. The water had become warm, and the frog was already languid. He no longer wanted to get out, and soon it simply wouldn't be possible.

[Alexey Sergeev]

Quote: Alexey Sergeev

would have used nuclear weapons without threats

In my opinion, there was no need to even mention nuclear weapons—the risks were too great. If they had wanted to threaten them, they could have used conventional weapons, as Iran did, which attacked American bases with well-advance warning. It was a "barn-attack" attack. The wolves were fed and the sheep were safe. The outskirts of Rzeszów, for example, would have been suitable.

[Cool90]

So we didn't threaten with nuclear weapons, it's the Western homosexuals who are panicking and threatening

Which of those who will use nuclear weapons have children in the West?
or as usual they lied

A Moscow court has frozen the assets of former Rusnano CEO Anatoly Chubais and other former corporate executives following a new lawsuit seeking 11,9 billion rubles.
This is Rusnano's second major lawsuit against its former management. In April 2025, the court seized the assets of Chubais and seven other defendants in the first case, totaling 5,6 billion rubles.

Well, I think the frog-Pukraina will hold out for a while.

[Ovsigovets]

Threaten Iran...clowns

[Alexey Sergeev]

Quote: Kull90

Which of those who will use nuclear weapons have children in the West?

I don't want to get caught in the crossfire, so I recommend you do your own search on Yandex and Google. There are also relevant investigations on YouTube. Among the property owners there are people who were close to VVP at various points in his career, starting with his time as the St. Petersburg mayor. Obviously, the data may change since the beginning of 2022, but the property ownership and residence of many of these individuals has been covered by Western media. Whether or not to believe them is an open question.

[_Morpeh_]

What a contrast in the discussions in the "News" and "Opinions" (+ former "Analytics") threads. Don't worry, the first is the probability of a primary strike from Russia in the event of a rapid NATO intervention deep into the country's western borders – here the probability is one divided by the value of all the elite/oligarchs' fortunes (i.e., they'll simply hand over the keys to both the main "lock" and the nuclear weapons, IMHO). It's more likely that some concerned Strategic Missile Forces officers (who hail from the ground) will give the order before the enemy, thereby giving the majority of the Russian population (which is urbanized) a precious 10-15 minutes to escape to basements and half-dead shelters. But even here, if we look at the primary strike carriers, it seems the greatest damage will be inflicted on the large agglomerations of our capitals (Moscow has a better chance of objectively defending itself) and then on to the Volga region, with a concentration in the Urals (more or less vibrant industry and pinpoint nuclear centers). Then, beyond Tyumen, the only high-value pinpoint targets are the Omsk Oil Refinery and, in terms of area, Novosibirsk, which has no specific targets—such a large city is more valuable than the aircraft factory beneath it (while it's flying toward these targets, it will also be possible to hide). Anything west of Moscow isn't particularly worth major nuclear strikes—they'll be taken with conventional troop maneuvers. I'm not calling for anything or promoting anything; I'm only observing the situation from the comfort of my own home.

[Alexey G]

They know that if this happens, the consequences will be devastating.

Don't lie to Rutte! We don't have much to say in response! We'll always cut you down, even the horned ones!

[Vyacheslav Boldyrev]

In order to "cool down" Europe's warlike ardor, we don't even need to fire nuclear warheads at them. We use Academician Sakharov's "Stalin Strait" project. We load a 300-megaton nuclear charge onto an old dry cargo ship or tanker or a decommissioned submarine, deliver it to the southern part of the North Sea, drown the crew, evacuate it, and then, about a week later, detonate it.
A tsunami wave after a directed explosion 1200 meters high drowns half of Europe, Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, and the entire territory up to the Alps.
You can shoot back, but where? At a wave the height of a 400-story skyscraper? Scary, monstrous, inhumane?
And aren't the West's plans to reduce Russia's population to 15 million people who will work in the mines frightening or monstrous to you?
And no negotiations with the Americans will give anything; they are used to exchanging glass beads for gold, swearing "eternal friendship," and then taking scalps from their new "friends"!

[the same doctor]

The West has no legal grounds to protest the detonation of an atomic bomb in the Beskydy Tunnel. And in Kyiv, too.

[Andrey_5]

What kind of nuclear weapons would be used during exercises in Europe? Apparently, they asked a stupid question, like, "What if they use them during exercises?" He answered. He could have answered anything, really; he knows we don't have a lot of idiots capable of that yet.

[Zaurbek]

If I were our PR people, I'd create a mathematical model of the EU's response to a tactical nuclear weapons strike on a specific target in Europe. And make it publicly available.
Let's say:
1 Poland
2. Germany
3. France
4 Britain

and so on.

It would be interesting to read about it in the EU too.

[ex_paragon]

It's been known for a long time. And there were exercises in the USSR. I'm not sure about Masturbek's villages.

[lynnot]

Like, he put it funny, just to get attention - "if Russia uses nuclear weapons during joint exercises with Belarus..."

[Serjy]

Quote: SergeyB

After this, warn that if these countries do not stop military actions (which they have been waging against us for many years now), then we will begin to destroy their cities.

So, you're suggesting we commit genocide against them, assuming they'll just watch and do nothing? Honestly, take some pills, or at least grow up mentally so you don't write such nonsense.
Neither "we" nor "you" have access to the button or key, and never will.

[commander]

"They know that if this happens, the consequences will be devastating." After these statements by the NATO Secretary General, I have a question: what are the qualifications for this position? At a minimum, the person in this position should understand that Russia doesn't use nuclear weapons solely because the damage would be far greater than expected. After 10 kilotons, it will be uninhabitable in the Netherlands for a long time.

[Evgeny_Sviridenko]

It's just a good idea to put the word "partners" in quotation marks. For the common people, "partners" aren't partners at all; unlike some "comrades," the common people don't kiss their gums...

[pudelartemon]

[quote][NATO Secretary General threatened/quote]
Ч
I suspect dire consequences await Russia. This Dutch worm could write to Sportloto, and we'll be deprived of one ruble for every three numbers guessed correctly.

[Keperveem72]

The NATO Secretary General doesn't have a single soldier under his command. He's just like Peskov, a sort of press secretary. Listening to him is disrespectful. The question is, why doesn't the Foreign Ministry, like Lavrov, watch him closely, so he can squeal like a stuck pig while we stand there and grin insolently. It's time to get rid of "Lavrov," and before that, investigate him for using his official position for personal gain, as well as his relatives. Something tells me we'll learn a lot of interesting things.

[bar]

They know that if this happens, the consequences will be devastating.

... for NATO countries

[Kostadinov]

Quote: Artyom81

"After all, NATO has roughly the same number of warheads as the Russian Federation. Even if we take into account only the European nuclear potential, which is currently growing, it's already around 600 warheads—period."

I don't know where these estimates come from, but the official information is that, excluding the strategic warheads of Russia and the United States, Russia today has approximately 10 times more nuclear weapons in the European theater than Britain, France, and NATO (including the strategic weapons of France and England on submarines).
Looking at potential, Europeans have reactor-grade plutonium reserves sufficient for 15,000-20,000 nuclear weapons, while Russia's stockpiles of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium are sufficient for approximately 40,000-50,000. Russia's fissile material production potential is also greater than that of all NATO countries combined (including the US). Finally, Russia's territory is four times larger and its population is approximately three times smaller than the EU's.
Rüte knows all this very well. What Rüte also knows is that the US won't exchange nuclear strikes with Russia to save France and Britain, and France and Britain won't wage a nuclear war with Russia to save Kyiv and all the Eastern European subhumans.