The Zelensky speech that the propaganda media inside the United States proclaimed was akin to “Churchill addressing Congress” has had its intended effect. The US and EU are about to start sending more advanced arms to Ukraine, raising the ante and prospects of a wider war which eventually has an ending with lots of sunshine.
In fact, Russia might well resort to using tactical nuclear weapons to eradicate supply lines and threats from Western nations should the leadership decide that the supply effort into Ukraine was designed to destroy the Russian Federation. It’s the stated policy of Moscow to reserve the right to first use of nuclear weapons since 2010, in the case of a conventional threat to Russia’s existence (via GlobalSecurity.org):
The Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, which has sections covering the potential use of nuclear weapons, says nothing about the power of the nuclear weapons that might be utilized, nor is there any mention of warheads with either high or “low” yields in TNT equivalents. Those sections of the official doctrine do not even categorize Russian nuclear weapons into strategic vs. tactical varieties. Two circumstances are listed as a basis for their potential use: the first — only in response to the use of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction against the Russian Federation and/or its allies; and the second — in the event of aggression against Russia that employs conventional weapons to the point that “the very existence of the state is threatened.” In other words, only reciprocal actions are permitted in either case.
Russia’s new Military Doctrine of 2010 changed the phrase that used to read “in response to large-scale aggression with conventional weapons in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation” to read “in case of aggression against the Russian Federation with use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened”. The latest wording, at least on the declarative level, was seen by some to have raised the threshold of using nuclear weapons.
Russian President Vladimir Putin December 26, 2014 approved the new military doctrine of Russia. According to the new version of the doctrine, Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies. The military activity of the NATO Alliance in recent years on the territory of Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, in the three Baltic States, as well as the events in Ukraine, showed that Russia was simply obliged to make some changes to its military doctrine, which has remained unchanged since 2010.
In other words, if the re-supply effort includes more offensive weapons being shipped to Ukrainian bases such as the Mig-29 fighter jets, the SAM systems, or otherwise, what is to stop the Russian government which has absolutely nothing to lose from detonating a low yield tactical nuclear weapon on a Ukrainian military base as a warning to NATO and to intimidate Kiev into surrender?
Remember this course of action of the Biden regime as the war intensifies:
The question has also been posed at the Modern Warfare Institute at West Point in this article:
The key excerpt:
If Putin is a rational actor, could he still consider a limited nuclear strike as part of his plans? He may believe that this is a rational act if he sees some advantage toward accomplishing the goals of overcoming Ukrainian resistance, keeping NATO out of the conflict, and ultimately restoring Russia’s past glory. But he does still have time to play out other options—cutting off electrical power, food, and medical supplies to Ukraine’s cities, increasing attacks against civilian infrastructure, or just continuing to use his conventional superiority over Ukrainian forces (despite current setbacks). If conventional options fail, he may then reach to tactical nuclear weapons as a way to meet his political objectives. So yes, a rational actor could consider using a nuclear weapon against a nonnuclear adversary.
Think about that as the negotiations move forward and eventually fail along with the arrogance of the Western governments to think that Russian military ineptitude is translated as weakness in Moscow.
On to the updates…
The damage in the Donetsk Oblast is incredible:
Video from occupied Volnovakha. It looks like not a single house is undamaged. pic.twitter.com/SKG0jLcZWg— marqs (@MarQs__) March 17, 2022
RuAF forces are still flying, despite heavy losses so far:
Kharkov region still under attack overnight:
Aftermath of overnight shelling in Merefa, Kharkiv region pic.twitter.com/xGqjyzo2cd— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) March 17, 2022
The picture below is why “battle damage” claims by either side should be verified; including those claims by the US and NATO governments. Some members of the Western media and Ukrainian sources claimed this ship was damaged by MLRS fire off the coast of Odessa. As anyone can see, there is nothing wrong with this vessel:
Russia is finally figuring out how to disrupt the Ukrainian communications channels:
Both sides continue to promote propaganda to the utmost bizarre extremes:
A great point in this Tweet:
At some point it is going to occur to Moldova and Georgia that if the Russian army continues on its current self- destructive path some currently frozen conflicts might get unfrozen. https://t.co/xvMLTySb5e— Lawrence Freedman (@LawDavF) March 16, 2022
We truly do live in dangerous times where newspeak will get one rewarded and the truth will get one punished. Clint Ehrlich points this out in the following eloquent Tweet:
More later on today and as developments warrant via my Telegram channel.