[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Saint Nicholas The Real St. Nick

Will Atheists in China Starve Due to No Fish to Eat?

A Thirteen State Solution for the Holy Land?

US Sends new Missle to a Pacific ally, angering China and Russia Moscow and Peoking

DeaTh noTice ... Freerepublic --- lasT Monday JR died

"‘We Are Not the Crazy Ones’: AOC Protests Too Much"

"Rep. Comer to Newsmax: No Evidence Biden Approved Autopen Use"

"Donald Trump Has Broken the Progressive Ratchet"

"America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!"

"Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded"

Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR!

British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames

"Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy

Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA

What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe.

"The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent"

CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino)

Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting!

POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25

2026 in Bible Prophecy

2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat

🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025

Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong

England is on the Brink of Civil War!

Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH

IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting

The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back

Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots

Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk

She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible

Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas

Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE

"Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’"

Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee

Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher

British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair

The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024

Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization.

The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom

Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR

DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK

Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with

What the fagots LGBTQ really means

I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience.

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson)

"Transcript: Mrs. Erika Kirk Delivers Public Address: ‘His Movement Will Go On’"

"Victor Davis Hanson to Newsmax: Kirk Slaying Crosses Rubicon"

Rest In Peace Charlie Kirk

Charlotte train murder: Graphic video captures random fatal stabbing of young Ukrainian refugee

Berlin in July 1945 - Probably the best restored film material you'll watch from that time!


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

International News
See other International News Articles

Title: Nothing to see here: Russia says it has right to deploy nukes in Crimea
Source: HotAir
URL Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/ ... ght-to-deploy-nukes-in-crimea/
Published: Mar 11, 2015
Author: Jazz Shaw
Post Date: 2015-03-11 09:03:34 by Tooconservative
Keywords: Putin, Crimea, Ukraine
Views: 1110
Comments: 13

This popped up as what was effectively a side note to another story, but it seems to be indicative of the new, swaggering attitude of Russia these days. Their Foreign Ministry official, Mikhail Ulyanov, had a few casual comments about some of the most recent territory seized by Putin, and it certainly sounds familiar to those of us who were around during the 80s.

Russia has the right to deploy nuclear arms in the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, which Moscow annexed from Ukraine last year, a Foreign Ministry official said on Wednesday, adding he knew of no plans to do so.

I don’t know if there are nuclear weapons there now. I don’t know about any plans, but in principle Russia can do it,” said Mikhail Ulyanov, the head of the ministry’s department on arms control

During one of the panel discussions on 21st century Russia which we attended last week, the topic of their nuclear weapons program came up several times. One speaker mentioned that current intelligence indicates that Putin has been flushing large sums of their oil money over the past several years (until the prices tanked) into a program aimed at reinvigorating their nuclear arsenal. In previous years, a lack of maintenance and even black market problems had international observers wondering if their readiness was in decline, and it probably was. But Putin seems to have prioritized both their tactical weapons capability and their naval strength. (We’ve already seen that their long range bombers are still in good repair.)

Putin may have no interest in helping lift his people out of poverty or modernizing his nation, but he’s certainly interested in returning Russia to the role of an empire, if not a superpower. With that in mind, would it really be all that surprising if he put some nukes in Crimea? (That is, of course, assuming that they’re not already there.) If this situation expands in any way and catches wider public attention, it’s no doubt going to bring renewed scrutiny to Barack Obama’s decision to pull back on our missile defense program in eastern Europe. Just what we need, right? Because it’s not as if we don’t already have enough people to worry about fighting these days.

A way must be found to deal with Putin, not over individual atrocities inside his own country or specific border incursions, but in terms of his long range plans. If we keep our gaze focused elsewhere and ignore him for long enough, we’ll be back in the cold war before we know it.


Poster Comment:

I notice the spokesman's denials amount to a suggestion that Russian nukes are already present in Crimea. Cagey but not an slip of the tongue.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All, A Pole, Pericles, redleghunter (#0)

...surprising if he put some nukes in Crimea? (That is, of course, assuming that they’re not already there.) If this situation expands in any way and catches wider public attention, it’s no doubt going to bring renewed scrutiny to Barack Obama’s decision to pull back on our missile defense program in eastern Europe. Just what we need, right? Because it’s not as if we don’t already have enough people to worry about fighting these days.

NATO's conventional headache seems to be turning into a strategic nuclear migraine.

Thanks a lot, General Strangelove Breedlove.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-11   9:07:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: TooConservative, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#0)

Russia says it has right to deploy nukes in Crimea

Since might makes right and there is no one to stop them,that's very true.

If we keep our gaze focused elsewhere and ignore him for long enough, we’ll be back in the cold war before we know it.

Which is EXACTLY what the neo-con bastards and their leftie trust fund children pals in the Dim Party that are so heavily invested in the defense industry dream about. Not only is war good for business,dividends,union jobs,and expanding business and political empires,but so is the threat of a potential war.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-03-11   9:23:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: TooConservative (#1)

NATO's conventional headache seems to be turning into a strategic nuclear migraine.

Thanks a lot, General Strangelove Breedlove.

Putin is playing the "revoke these sanctions now" cards just right. Hit on all the taboos the West will worry about. However, what should be known to him is that Obolo does not care what he does.

As long as Putin does not interfere with Obolo's tee times and his March madness brackets, Paris could be in Russia's grasp next week!

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-11   9:57:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: redleghunter (#3) (Edited)

...Paris could be in Russia's grasp next week!

You should be a speechwriter for McStain and Lady Lindsey. Apply now, generous salary and benefits!

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-11   10:03:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: TooConservative (#4)

Well the old Soviets used to boast they could be in Paris within three weeks.

Just upped the timeline given the paucity of EU defenses these days.

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-11   10:24:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: redleghunter (#5) (Edited)

Well the old Soviets used to boast they could be in Paris within three weeks.

You recall when the Soviet archives were opened and we saw their actual plans for the conquest of Europe. They planned to use nuclear and chemical attacks immediately, no nice easy escalation that was always the imagined scenario of NATO and Pentagon planners. I read some writings and even a novel on how top-level NATO staffers envisioned a steady escalation toward battlefield and then strategic nukes.

The tanks and BMPS would be sealed and ready to run coming through the Fulda Gap, their munition trucks and fuel trucks following behind. They would head for the Channel and not stop until they got there. They would use refugee panic, NBC attacks and anything else to pave their way. And all without any regard whatsoever for full strategic nuclear war between American and the USSR. And the Soviets gave consideration to nuking at least one major American city like Chicago, just to show us right off the bat that they weren't afraid of our strategic nukes.

We misread the Soviets so badly on that war scenario. No one ever expected them to nuke or chemically attack our German bases as the opening move in an invasion. But that was their plan all along. A Pearl Harbor on German territory.

As I recall, the actual plan was to be at the Channel in about 10 days, not three weeks. They seemed to believe that if they didn't totally shock/awe us and take immediate advantage that they might fail altogether. They favored boldness and an attack so swift and ruthless that we couldn't regroup before they got out of their tanks to look across the Channel at Britain.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-11   10:48:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: TooConservative (#6)

You recall when the Soviet archives were opened and we saw their actual plans for the conquest of Europe. They planned to use nuclear and chemical attacks immediately, no nice easy escalation that was always the imagined scenario of NATO and Pentagon planners. I read some writings and even a novel on how top-level NATO staffers envisioned a steady escalation toward battlefield and then strategic nukes.

The irony was that it was Kennedy's abandonment of Eisenhower's "New Look" military posture that make the Soviet strategy viable. Our interests were better served by allies developing an independent nuclear deter, as France did. Eisenhower had the right idea about NATO, there should have been no troops remaining in Europe by 1961. Had his advice been heeded there would have been no NATO dragging us into the Balkans and Libya.

And the policy of dividing up our strength into forward based lines that we were then committed to, and thus eliminating many other possible options in the event of war was known as "Flexible Response!"

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-03-11   12:22:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: nativist nationalist (#7)

Good points all. Recall that after WW II, Canada was our ally and considered the #4 military power in the world.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-11   12:48:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: TooConservative (#0) (Edited)

Russia says it has right to deploy nukes in Crimea

Would any rational line of thought conclude Russia should not be able to deploy nukes on its own territory?

Does the US not have a right to deploy nukes in Alaska, Hawaii or Maine?

A way must be found to deal with Putin, not over individual atrocities inside his own country or specific border incursions, but in terms of his long range plans. If we keep our gaze focused elsewhere and ignore him for long enough, we’ll be back in the cold war before we know it.

So a new cold war is all the fault of Putin, and not Obama & associates who violated Ukraine's sovereignty by pushing the takeover there?

Who writes this crap that ignores the US empire ambitions? (Of course, it's the US major media).

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-12   11:45:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: TooConservative (#6)

You recall when the Soviet archives were opened and we saw their actual plans for the conquest of Europe.

The US military has similar plans to take over just about every other country on the planet. That's normal. Making such plans is what about any military of any superpower does, and it's done independent of any political authority. Consider it part of keeping their military skills on edge.

Implementing such plans, or preparing same, is when things go too far.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-12   11:50:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Pinguinite (#9)

Who writes this crap that ignores the US empire ambitions? (Of course, it's the US major media).

Apparently part of the job description.

Media is much worse today than at any time in my lifetime.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-12   12:20:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Pinguinite (#10)

The US military has similar plans to take over just about every other country on the planet.

Of course, this is the job of any military capable of offensive operations.

The Soviet plans were especially bloodcurdling. They planned to use nukes and chem weapon attacks to drive large populations out onto the roads and autobahns to choke the ability of NATO to bring up reinforcements. But when the Soviet armored forces came to these refugees, the plan was to drive their tanks directly over them without slowing down. They had plans on how to make sure the tank columns were led by men who could be relied upon to grind up thousands of civilians under their tank treads without question.

Stuff like that. Also, their ideas about nuking a Chicago immediately just to demonstrate they weren't afraid of our strategic nukes at all.

Cold-blooded as the Pentagon is, they never produced such psychopathic plans for total war.

What always struck me was, as low as our opinion of the USSR was, we had no idea they would be far worse than the Nazis in a showdown. And they knew that and counted on it. And that their only chance to win was to do so much shock/awe that they could overcome us before we could rally our forces and superior technology.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-12   12:28:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: TooConservative (#12)

Cold-blooded as the Pentagon is, they never produced such psychopathic plans for total war.

There's no way to know how true this is.

The US has had it's own closet skeletons about false flags (i.e. airline bombing, was it, to push an invasion of Cuba)?. Do you honestly think we've seen all plans, however serious, considered by the US military?

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-12   12:34:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com