The intermediate-range missile did not carry nuclear weapons, but it is part of a strategic arsenal that is capable of delivering them.

The intermediate-range missile did not carry nuclear weapons, but it is part of a strategic arsenal that is capable of delivering them.

President Vladimir V. Putin escalated a tense showdown with the West on Thursday, saying that Russia had launched a new intermediate-range ballistic missile at Ukraine in response to Ukraine’s recent use of American and British weapons to strike deeper into Russia.

In what appeared to be an ominous threat against Ukraine’s western allies, Mr. Putin also asserted that Russia had the right to strike the military facilities of countries “that allow their weapons to be used against our facilities.”

His warning came hours after Russia’s military fired a nuclear-capable ballistic missile at Ukraine that Western officials and analysts said was meant to instill fear in Kyiv and the West. Though the missile carried only conventional warheads, using it signaled that Russia could strike with nuclear weapons if it chooses.

  • @[email protected]
    8•1 month ago

    I know experts say this doesn’t fundamentally change anything, but this sort of stuff still scares the shit out of me. There used to be a subreddit called UkraineAnxiety but they shut down with the Reddit protests last year. Really wish there was a resource like that now, because most comments I’m seeing are nonchalantly joking about nuclear war and that’s not helping…

    • CethinEnglish
      13•1 month ago

      If it’s causing you issues, you may want to try to avoid it. Putin’s strongest weapon is his threat of nuclear war. It isn’t going to happen though. That’s why people joke about it. It disarms the weapon, because a threat is only a threat as long as people believe it. If Putin launched a nuke, China would cut them loose and NATO would destroy them with conventional weapons incredibly quickly.

      Putin wants you to be scared. Either learn that it’s a meaningless threat or stop listening to it. The threats aren’t going to stop.

    • @[email protected]English
      6•1 month ago

      It might be more healthy to just disconnect from news like this entirely. Doomscrolling gives you an emotional reaction, but the events are generally not directly relevant to you, nor do you have any significant control over them.

    • @[email protected]
      4•1 month ago

      May I suggest you take a moment to consider the scenario from Russia’s perspective.

      1. They have been unable to defeat Ukraine, a single independent nation backed by NATO funding in an all out war. Based on this, their chances of defeating NATO itself in a conventional war are zero.
      2. Their chances of defeating NATO in a nuclear war are even lower. Russia has to distribute its stock of very poorly maintained ICBMs across targets located all across the globe, against an enemy that has demonstrated substantially better early warning and air defense capabilities than they have. Meanwhile every NATO nuke is pointed directly at Russia, and half of those squarely at Moscow.

      Now, both scenarios would be devastating for everyone involved. But the point I’m getting at here is that both scenarios end with Google maps updating to read to “The smoking crater formerly known as Russia”.

      Putin is not a suicide bomber. He’s not doing this out of some ideological devotion to a cause. He’s a thinking human being whose primary goals are to be alive and be in charge of a powerful nation. Starting a war with NATO, even a conventional war, guarantees him losing at least one of those things, and almost certainly both.

      Conversely, the war in Ukraine is not, ultimately, a threat to the survival of Russia, and is only politically a threat to Putin’s personal survival. He can choose to end that war whenever he wants to. It might mean handing back all the Ukrainian territory he’s taken, but there’s no way Ukraine wouldn’t accept that deal in a heartbeat.

      There is no scenario where a war with NATO benefits Putin or the people around him in any way, shape or form, and they absolutely know this.

      On the other hand, threatening war is highly beneficial, because it scares people into behaving irrationally. Threatening nuclear war is especially effective because it draws on decades of cold war anxieties.

      But these threats are hollow. They have no way to follow through on them that doesn’t guarantee their total annihilation. And first and foremost, their goal is to not be annihilated.

    • @Entropywins
      2•1 month ago

      Be the change you want to see…let me know if you start the community ill pop in and join!