1. We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that

  2. They truly put out a statement like this once a month just to keep nuclear weapons at the forefront of Westerners minds.

  3. They mean they don't need to use weapons and shoulder all the blame when they can just blow up a powerplant and claim it was Ukraine

  4. That's exactly how I interpreted it. Sounds like they just found out that they may not have a usable nuclear "arsenal" after all.

  5. Russian army losses are like they were hit by nuclear bombs. Just spread over months instead of seconds. No need for nukes indeed.

  6. Interpretation: we had our media say that to put the shits up 'the west' but now we're reeling that one in because it hasn't worked and we need to switch to this hollow masquerade of 'reasonableness'.

  7. No need because you're trying to destroy the Nuclear Power Plant in due time. It's becoming clear what the plan is for this Terrorist.

  8. I really hope they misfire like that air defense system did, where the missile turns around and hits the position it was launched from.

  9. To late to little. They are preparing for negotiations and has to come up with something to make people forget that Putin speach on the first day of the invasion where he threatened the whole world with nuclear war if someone helped Ukraine. A good thing is that they are realizing that the war is lost. We will see several attempts to make them look a little bit "friendlier". But let's never forget.

  10. Why use nukes if you can buy crappy drones from Alieexpress, put it in black ninja pyjamas and strap a soviet era missile launcher to it?

  11. Well the powerplant situation kinda is a nuclear fear in itself. Who need nukes when you've got Russians in the biggesr NPP in Europe?

  12. i wonder if ukraine would start bombarding the nuclear power stations in range if they did,i saw i report at least 3 nuclear reactors are within artillery range inside Russia

  13. No, instead they are threatening to blow up a nuclear power station if they don't get their way. Not nuclear weapons but a nuclear incident nonetheless.

  14. The thing with nukes is, if Russia ever did use one, that is every single one of their allies abandoning them, even Iran and China would cut all ties.

  15. Even Putin has said, very clearly, that nukes would be a lose-lose for everyone. I really think he doesn't want to use those.

  16. for everyone who is wondering ... this Guy explaines why russia might not have had nukes ready or very very few for a very long time.

  17. I have no doubt there will be 'an accident' of some kind, 'forcing' their ultimate withdrawal. Psychopathic revenge - if they can't have Ukraine, no-one (especially the Uktrainians) will.

  18. Well this is just them realising that threatening with nukes is pointless. There is no slising scale, you either nuke something or you don't. After your first threat you either drop it or you don't. They have been waving it about for months now, no one has listened do they are putting it back in their pants.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News Reporter