Nuclear threat: Is President Vladimir Putin bluff?

Oleshnik may be “innocently” referred to as a “hazel tree,” but the Kremlin’s latest hypersonic ballistic missile is “one of the most dangerous,” says James Kilner in the Daily Telegraph. said.

The Russian military conducted its first test launch in combat last Thursday. The missile flew from Astrakhan in the Caspian Sea at more than 10 times the speed of sound and hit a target in the Ukrainian city of Dnipropetrovsk, raining down multiple warheads “in deadly synchrony.” Oleshnik served as a warning to Britain in particular, days after Ukrainian forces fired the first American and British missiles into Russian territory. President Vladimir Putin boasted that the nuclear-capable missile was designed for a “decisive” attack on Britain. He warned that Russia’s adversaries should “think seriously” about their actions.

“This is how big wars start,” Simon Jenkins said in the Guardian. NATO countries are playing with fire by recklessly escalating the conflict. It is impossible to gauge the exact circumstances under which President Putin will use nuclear weapons. But his bluff is unwise. He is “an isolated dictator who lacks remorse and is prone to unpredictable moods.”

Don’t be fooled, Dominic Lawson told the Sunday Times. “We’ve been here many times before.” Since the invasion began in February 2022, Russian officials have used nuclear weapons more than 200 times, according to calculations by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. threatened to use. Since then, Western countries have crossed a series of red lines, including the supply of weapons, tanks and missiles. Fighter – no problem.

In late 2022, as Russia was suffering a crushing defeat in Kharkiv, Washington was convinced that the Kremlin was seriously considering using nuclear weapons on the battlefield. CIA Director William Burns was sent to brief President Vladimir Putin on how the United States would respond. China also intervened, but President Putin formally withdrew. UnHerd’s Christopher McCallion and Ben Freedman said that while the risk may be small, even if the probability of nuclear war is low, we should certainly “give it wide leeway”. Furthermore, while the risks of using Western missiles against Russia are high, the “security rewards are small.” They will do little to change the tide of the war. So why would we take a chance?

Edward Lucas told the Daily Mail that he, “like many Russian observers,” believes the nuclear threat is empty “fuss.” But the UK is already under attack, with mysterious fires in factories and military facilities and a devastating cyber attack on a hospital. “This is going to escalate.” It’s worth remembering that it’s not the West that is escalating this war, James Nixey said in the Guardian. NATO countries are cautious and are “drip-supplying” Ukraine with enough weapons to sustain its efforts. Escalating is Russia, crushing civilian targets in Ukraine and deploying Iranian drones and North Korean troops. If the West had taken a tougher line long ago, “there would have been far fewer Ukrainian deaths.”