What's new

Petraeus: US would destroy Russia’s troops if Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine

F-22Raptor

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
16,980
Reaction score
3
Country
United States
Location
United States
The US and its allies would destroy Russia’s troops and equipment in Ukraine – as well as sink its Black Sea fleet – if Russian president Vladimir Putin uses nuclear weapons in the country, former CIA director and retired four-star army general David Petraeus warned on Sunday.

Petreaus said that he had not spoken to national security adviser Jake Sullivan on the likely US response to nuclear escalation from Russia, which administration officials have said has been repeatedly communicated to Moscow.

He told ABC News: “Just to give you a hypothetical, we would respond by leading a Nato – a collective – effort that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea.”

The warning comes days after Putin expressed views that many have interpreted as a threat of a larger war between Russia and the west.

Asked if the use of nuclear weapons by Russia in Ukraine would bring America and Nato into the war, Petreaus said that it would not be a situation triggering the alliance’s Article 5, which calls for a collective defense. That is because Ukraine is not part of Nato – nonetheless, a “US and Nato response” would be in order, Petreaus said.

Petreaus acknowledged that the likelihood that radiation would extend to Nato countries under the Article 5 umbrella could perhaps be construed as an attack on a Nato member.

“Perhaps you can make that case,” he said. “The other case is that this is so horrific that there has to be a response – it cannot go unanswered.”

Yet, Petreaus added, “You don’t want to, again, get into a nuclear escalation here. But you have to show that this cannot be accepted in any way.”

Nonetheless, with pressure mounting on Putin after Ukrainian gains in the east of the country under last week’s annexation declaration and resistance to mobilization efforts within Russia mounting, Petreaus said Moscow’s leader was “desperate”.

“The battlefield reality he faces is, I think, irreversible,” he said. “No amount of shambolic mobilization, which is the only way to describe it; no amount of annexation; no amount of even veiled nuclear threats can actually get him out of this particular situation.

“At some point there’s going to have to be recognition of that. At some point there’s going to have to be some kind of beginning of negotiations, as [Ukrainian] President [Volodymyr] Zelenskiy has said, will be the ultimate end.”

But, Petreaus warned, “It can still get worse for Putin and for Russia. And even the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield won’t change this at all.” Still, he added, “You have to take the threat seriously.”

Senator Marco Rubio, the ranking Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee told CNN that Putin was down to two choices: established defensive lines or withdraw and lose territory.

Rubio said he believed it “quite possible” that Putin could strike distribution points where US and allied supplies are entering Ukraine, including inside Poland. The senator acknowledged the nuclear threat, but he said most worries about “a Russian attack inside Nato territory, for example, aiming at the airport in Poland or some other distribution point”.

“Nato will have to respond to it,” he said. “How it will respond, I think a lot of it will depend on the nature of the attack and the scale and scope of it.”

But as a senator privy to Pentagon briefings, Rubio resisted being drawn on whether he’d seen evidence that Russia is preparing to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine.

“Certainly, the risk is probably higher today than it was a month ago,” Rubio said, predicting that Russia would probably take an intermediate step.

“He may strike one of these logistical points. And that logistical point may not be inside … Ukraine. To me, that is the area that I focus on the most, because it has a tactical aspect to it. And I think he probably views it as less escalatory. Nato may not.”

 
US dare not mess with Russia in nuclear conflict. US should stop provoking Ukraine and prolong the war or send it troops to Ukraine to fight in support of Russia.
 
US dare not mess with Russia in nuclear conflict. US should stop provoking Ukraine and prolong the war or send it troops to Ukraine to fight in support of Russia.

What? US to send us forces in Ukraine to fight against Ukraine in support of Russia? What is this mental farce...

Is this in a parallel universe
200w.gif


I don't understand why Indian twitter handlers, youtube spammers and just the regular viral fake news consumpers in India are intellectually questionable.. Is it due to the lack of meat consumption what is it?
 
But US will confront Russia after Europe's destruction. Because we have more financial interest than going to war for Europe. Can Europe is capable enough to pay America for reconstruction loans after the war?
 
Patraeus has been irrelevant for very a long time. First of all the Russians have better air defense systems than the Americans. We all saw the abysmal the performance of the Patriot SAM systems were in Yemen. Second just in case Patraeus has forgotten, the Russians have a nuclear arsenal larger than the Americans and in many ways more advanced. The Russians have hypersonic missiles, the Americans don not. That means that the Amerricans can't stop Russian nuclear hypersonic missiles from hitting their targets, including anywhere in the continental US. Now I'm not no rocket scientist but I don't think that's a game that sleepy joe wants to play since he'd probably poop his pants in the process.

The US and its allies would destroy Russia’s troops and equipment in Ukraine – as well as sink its Black Sea fleet – if Russian president Vladimir Putin uses nuclear weapons in the country, former CIA director and retired four-star army general David Petraeus warned on Sunday.

Petreaus said that he had not spoken to national security adviser Jake Sullivan on the likely US response to nuclear escalation from Russia, which administration officials have said has been repeatedly communicated to Moscow.

He told ABC News: “Just to give you a hypothetical, we would respond by leading a Nato – a collective – effort that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea.”

The warning comes days after Putin expressed views that many have interpreted as a threat of a larger war between Russia and the west.

Asked if the use of nuclear weapons by Russia in Ukraine would bring America and Nato into the war, Petreaus said that it would not be a situation triggering the alliance’s Article 5, which calls for a collective defense. That is because Ukraine is not part of Nato – nonetheless, a “US and Nato response” would be in order, Petreaus said.

Petreaus acknowledged that the likelihood that radiation would extend to Nato countries under the Article 5 umbrella could perhaps be construed as an attack on a Nato member.

“Perhaps you can make that case,” he said. “The other case is that this is so horrific that there has to be a response – it cannot go unanswered.”

Yet, Petreaus added, “You don’t want to, again, get into a nuclear escalation here. But you have to show that this cannot be accepted in any way.”

Nonetheless, with pressure mounting on Putin after Ukrainian gains in the east of the country under last week’s annexation declaration and resistance to mobilization efforts within Russia mounting, Petreaus said Moscow’s leader was “desperate”.

“The battlefield reality he faces is, I think, irreversible,” he said. “No amount of shambolic mobilization, which is the only way to describe it; no amount of annexation; no amount of even veiled nuclear threats can actually get him out of this particular situation.

“At some point there’s going to have to be recognition of that. At some point there’s going to have to be some kind of beginning of negotiations, as [Ukrainian] President [Volodymyr] Zelenskiy has said, will be the ultimate end.”

But, Petreaus warned, “It can still get worse for Putin and for Russia. And even the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield won’t change this at all.” Still, he added, “You have to take the threat seriously.”

Senator Marco Rubio, the ranking Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee told CNN that Putin was down to two choices: established defensive lines or withdraw and lose territory.

Rubio said he believed it “quite possible” that Putin could strike distribution points where US and allied supplies are entering Ukraine, including inside Poland. The senator acknowledged the nuclear threat, but he said most worries about “a Russian attack inside Nato territory, for example, aiming at the airport in Poland or some other distribution point”.

“Nato will have to respond to it,” he said. “How it will respond, I think a lot of it will depend on the nature of the attack and the scale and scope of it.”

But as a senator privy to Pentagon briefings, Rubio resisted being drawn on whether he’d seen evidence that Russia is preparing to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine.

“Certainly, the risk is probably higher today than it was a month ago,” Rubio said, predicting that Russia would probably take an intermediate step.

“He may strike one of these logistical points. And that logistical point may not be inside … Ukraine. To me, that is the area that I focus on the most, because it has a tactical aspect to it. And I think he probably views it as less escalatory. Nato may not.”

 
Russia will utilize Tactical nukes and the west will not do anything in my honest opinion and they will also utilize chemical weapons without regrets.. Biden basically said if Russia attacks a NATO country which means he won't do anything...

I predict a crazy Russian push-back in the coming winter and remember this prediction Russia also captures Odessa and all the way to the Romanian border and Tranistria.

This will come from Russia simply taking off their gloves and if my opinion is right Putin won't settle for anything before reaching the Romanian borders he will stop there that is in my honest opinion his real intentions to reach odessa and the Romanian border he doesn't care about Kiev
 
Last edited:
What? US to send us forces in Ukraine to fight against Ukraine in support of Russia? What is this mental farce...

Is this in a parallel universe
200w.gif


I don't understand why Indian twitter handlers, youtube spammers and just the regular viral fake news consumpers in India are intellectually questionable.. Is it due to the lack of meat consumption what is it?


Not much, but some degree of intelect is required to understan the post and its context.
 
The US and its allies would destroy Russia’s troops and equipment in Ukraine – as well as sink its Black Sea fleet – if Russian president Vladimir Putin uses nuclear weapons in the country, former CIA director and retired four-star army general David Petraeus warned on Sunday.

Petreaus said that he had not spoken to national security adviser Jake Sullivan on the likely US response to nuclear escalation from Russia, which administration officials have said has been repeatedly communicated to Moscow.

He told ABC News: “Just to give you a hypothetical, we would respond by leading a Nato – a collective – effort that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea.”

The warning comes days after Putin expressed views that many have interpreted as a threat of a larger war between Russia and the west.

Asked if the use of nuclear weapons by Russia in Ukraine would bring America and Nato into the war, Petreaus said that it would not be a situation triggering the alliance’s Article 5, which calls for a collective defense. That is because Ukraine is not part of Nato – nonetheless, a “US and Nato response” would be in order, Petreaus said.

Petreaus acknowledged that the likelihood that radiation would extend to Nato countries under the Article 5 umbrella could perhaps be construed as an attack on a Nato member.

“Perhaps you can make that case,” he said. “The other case is that this is so horrific that there has to be a response – it cannot go unanswered.”

Yet, Petreaus added, “You don’t want to, again, get into a nuclear escalation here. But you have to show that this cannot be accepted in any way.”

Nonetheless, with pressure mounting on Putin after Ukrainian gains in the east of the country under last week’s annexation declaration and resistance to mobilization efforts within Russia mounting, Petreaus said Moscow’s leader was “desperate”.

“The battlefield reality he faces is, I think, irreversible,” he said. “No amount of shambolic mobilization, which is the only way to describe it; no amount of annexation; no amount of even veiled nuclear threats can actually get him out of this particular situation.

“At some point there’s going to have to be recognition of that. At some point there’s going to have to be some kind of beginning of negotiations, as [Ukrainian] President [Volodymyr] Zelenskiy has said, will be the ultimate end.”

But, Petreaus warned, “It can still get worse for Putin and for Russia. And even the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield won’t change this at all.” Still, he added, “You have to take the threat seriously.”

Senator Marco Rubio, the ranking Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee told CNN that Putin was down to two choices: established defensive lines or withdraw and lose territory.

Rubio said he believed it “quite possible” that Putin could strike distribution points where US and allied supplies are entering Ukraine, including inside Poland. The senator acknowledged the nuclear threat, but he said most worries about “a Russian attack inside Nato territory, for example, aiming at the airport in Poland or some other distribution point”.

“Nato will have to respond to it,” he said. “How it will respond, I think a lot of it will depend on the nature of the attack and the scale and scope of it.”

But as a senator privy to Pentagon briefings, Rubio resisted being drawn on whether he’d seen evidence that Russia is preparing to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine.

“Certainly, the risk is probably higher today than it was a month ago,” Rubio said, predicting that Russia would probably take an intermediate step.

“He may strike one of these logistical points. And that logistical point may not be inside … Ukraine. To me, that is the area that I focus on the most, because it has a tactical aspect to it. And I think he probably views it as less escalatory. Nato may not.”

Haha bring it on adulterer Petreaus.

You think Putin is afraid of USA?
 
Patraeus has been irrelevant for very a long time. First of all the Russians have better air defense systems than the Americans. We all saw the abysmal the performance of the Patriot SAM systems were in Yemen. Second just in case Patraeus has forgotten, the Russians have a nuclear arsenal larger than the Americans and in many ways more advanced. The Russians have hypersonic missiles, the Americans don not. That means that the Amerricans can't stop Russian nuclear hypersonic missiles from hitting their targets, including anywhere in the continental US. Now I'm not no rocket scientist but I don't think that's a game that sleepy joe wants to play since he'd probably poop his pants in the process.

Saudi Air defense systems are actully the best in the world by a good margin. They downed a ridiculous amount setting world records very solid air defense forces but even in that situation some are bound to penetrate no systems are bullet proof in the air defense industry currently.. Humanity has not yet reached that stage where they have a bullet proof Air defense systems. The reason the Saudis have better AD is because they have a more bulk system rather then one system it is multiple systems put together something the US doesn't have because they don't buy..

Hence Russia will find more success in penetrating European defenses because they are also using Hypersonic missiles difficult to down them hence Russia will find it's targets with ease and vice versa Russia's defenses will be penetrated
 
Last edited:
Saudi Air defense systems are actully the best in the world by a good margin. They downed a ridiculous setting world records very solid air defense forces but even in that situation some are bound to penetrate no systems are bullet proof in the air defense industry currently.. Humanity has not yet reached that stage where they have a bullet Air defense systems. The reason the Saudis have better AD is because they have a more bulk system rather then one system it is multiple systems put together something the US doesn't have because they don't buy..

Hence Russia will find more success in penetrating European defenses because they are also using Hypersonic missiles difficult to down them
Yeah, but I don't think Putin is afraid of USA. And why should he be?
 
is the general planning on sending tom cruise?
 
Back
Top Bottom