Quotes
We believe that we have the right to use our weapons against military facilities of the countries that allow to use their weapons against our facilities. And in case of escalation of aggressive actions, we will respond resolutely in a mirror way."
After discussing Ukraine's attack on Russia using U.S.-made ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System), Putin said
It's very clear. They've been running the same playbook for over two years. They're going to continue to escalate the threats, they're going to continue to see what creates an impression and if it's the use of a so-called hypersonic weapon, then they will continue to do that."
Regarding Russia's next steps, if they do not contain launching nuclear weapons, Erath said.jpg)
American politicians and journalists are seriously discussing the consequences of transferring nuclear weapons to Kyiv. It seems that my sad joke about crazy, senile Biden, who decided to leave this life gracefully, taking a significant part of humanity with him, is turning into a frightening reality."
Medvedev wroteNevertheless, the doctrine still states that Russia regards the use of nuclear weapons as an extreme measure only to be used against critical threats to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the union state. While this doctrine shift lowers the threshold for nuclear use, the actual likelihood of nuclear weapons employment is low."
Rodgers continuedI don't think that the possibility that they would use a nuclear weapon in that way is much greater than it has been and it's always been small for several reasons. First and most obvious is that it's difficult to see what they would hope to accomplish through the use of a nuclear weapon. They're able to hit targets throughout Ukraine and cause widespread destruction and lots of civilian casualties."
Regarding a possible launch of nuclear weapons by Russia on Ukraine, he saidWe are not planning to equip Ukraine with nuclear weapons,
the White House told Newsweek on TuesdayThere's nothing really new about the weapon that the Russians may have used. They have highly capable long range ballistic missiles and have had them for years. This one [the Oreshnisk missile used on Dnipro] might in some ways be a little better or it might not. We don't know. It's experimental. But they it was intended to send a message that they are prepared to use new weapons, and that the war is not winnable for Ukraine. That's the impression they want to create."
He continuedThe very threat of transferring nuclear weapons to the Kyiv regime can be considered preparation for nuclear conflict with Russia,
he addedRussia's new nuclear doctrine is unlikely to prompt a meaningful change in the way that the United States approaches the conflict,
he saidRetaliatory actions are being prepared."
Moscow issued a chilling threat to the West with Russia's defence ministry saying
I am sure you understand that this was a stabilising factor in the very dangerous situation in which we currently find ourselves. We are committed to this practice and we hope that the United States will also be committed to it,
Ryabkov was quoted as saying
The signal is very clear and obvious - stop, you should not do this any more, you mustn't supply Kyiv with everything they want, don't encourage them towards new military adventures, they are too dangerous,
state media quoted Ryabkov as sayingThe current (U.S.) administration must stop this spiral of escalation,
Ryabkov addedIt's way too little, years late. It's been a truism that Ukraine has needed the capability to strike the Russian rear for many years at this point."
George Barros, a Russia analyst at the US-based Insitute for the Study of War, told BI
It feels like everything that we've been getting has been either too late or it's just enough to barely hold on."
One American fighting in Ukraine told BIHad Ukraine been able to destroy several squadrons of Su-34 and Su-35 fighters early in the year, then Russia would have significantly less capacity to employ glide bombs against Ukrainian positions and civilians,
he saidPutin is not entitled to a veto over US or NATO policy on the basis that he can threaten us."
He saidIn this case, (the missile) was without explosives...There were no types of explosions like we expected. There was something, but it was not huge."
The second source saidI would say this is an incredibly expensive way to deliver what is probably not that much destruction,
said Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in CaliforniaIt's one thing to use these weapons within Ukraine's 1991 borders,
he said