Post by account_disabled on Mar 9, 2024 4:45:09 GMT 1
Could Europe defend itself against a possible Russian attack, without the support of the USA? Wyatt : In theory, Europe's NATO allies could match Russia's conventional military firepower, at least for a while. European firepower is likely to increase in the coming years, if European allies live up to their commitments. Russia's "competitive advantage" is in nuclear weapons. The unknown is how that would translate into a practical advantage on the battlefield if Russia wanted to invade, say, the Baltics. Would Russia's first use of nuclear weapons in Europe have political negatives in relations with its allies, especially China? China has traditionally pursued a strong no-first-use policy of nuclear weapons. However, it seems to have recently watered down that policy. The big, serious question for Europe if it wants to defend itself against Russia without the help of the US, is whether it should increase its own nuclear arsenal – certainly tactically, and possibly strategically. When I say that it is a question for Europe, I mean, of course, that it is a question for individual European countries.
Does France want to increase its capability in battlefield nuclear weapons? Does, say, Poland wants to acquire its own nuclear weapons? RFE / RL : Would France and Great Britain retaliate with a nuclear strike if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons against the Baltic states? Wyatt: I am convinced they would not. The strategic nuclear arsenals of France and the UK are last-resort capabilities designed to destroy major Russian cities in retaliation for nuclear strikes on civilian centers USA Phone Number in France and the UK. Their existence is likely to deter Russia from nuclear attacks on France and the UK. But they would not deter Russia from using tactical nuclear weapons against, say, Poland or the Baltics. Putin is pinning his hopes on a return of Trump to the White House RFE/RL: What would such a war between Europe and NATO against Russia look like? Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recently denied that his country is preparing for war with NATO, but that if it happens, it will be "asymmetrical." «Given the incommensurability of our military potential, we will simply have no choice. (Our) response will be asymmetrical.
In order to protect the territorial integrity of our country, ballistic and cruise missiles with special warheads will be used. This is based on our military doctrine and all It is well known that if it comes to that, it will be an apocalypse, the end of everything," Medvedev said. Wyatt: This statement by Medvedev, published by TASS in February, sounds like a justification for the first use of nuclear weapons in the event of a direct conflict between NATO countries and Russia. At one level it is a repeat of earlier statements made since the beginning of the conflict that Russia has more warheads than NATO including the US. These statements are designed to determine European politicians and public opinion from taking too assertive a stance against Russia. And let's not forget that when Medvedev refers to the “territorial integrity of our country” he includes Crimea. This statement offers the prospect of mutual destruction. But I don't think Russia would want to provoke a strategic exchange with the USA. At another level it might be looking forward to a Trump Presidency, when the US might take a back seat in NATO. “You European NATO allies would have no response to Russian tactical nuclear weapons,” Medvedev might be warning.
Does France want to increase its capability in battlefield nuclear weapons? Does, say, Poland wants to acquire its own nuclear weapons? RFE / RL : Would France and Great Britain retaliate with a nuclear strike if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons against the Baltic states? Wyatt: I am convinced they would not. The strategic nuclear arsenals of France and the UK are last-resort capabilities designed to destroy major Russian cities in retaliation for nuclear strikes on civilian centers USA Phone Number in France and the UK. Their existence is likely to deter Russia from nuclear attacks on France and the UK. But they would not deter Russia from using tactical nuclear weapons against, say, Poland or the Baltics. Putin is pinning his hopes on a return of Trump to the White House RFE/RL: What would such a war between Europe and NATO against Russia look like? Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recently denied that his country is preparing for war with NATO, but that if it happens, it will be "asymmetrical." «Given the incommensurability of our military potential, we will simply have no choice. (Our) response will be asymmetrical.
In order to protect the territorial integrity of our country, ballistic and cruise missiles with special warheads will be used. This is based on our military doctrine and all It is well known that if it comes to that, it will be an apocalypse, the end of everything," Medvedev said. Wyatt: This statement by Medvedev, published by TASS in February, sounds like a justification for the first use of nuclear weapons in the event of a direct conflict between NATO countries and Russia. At one level it is a repeat of earlier statements made since the beginning of the conflict that Russia has more warheads than NATO including the US. These statements are designed to determine European politicians and public opinion from taking too assertive a stance against Russia. And let's not forget that when Medvedev refers to the “territorial integrity of our country” he includes Crimea. This statement offers the prospect of mutual destruction. But I don't think Russia would want to provoke a strategic exchange with the USA. At another level it might be looking forward to a Trump Presidency, when the US might take a back seat in NATO. “You European NATO allies would have no response to Russian tactical nuclear weapons,” Medvedev might be warning.