NATO vs Russia: NATO से आमने-सामने की जंग के मूड में पुतिन, इन तीन देशों पर रूसी हमले खतरा बढ़ा, पढ़िए डिटेल

NATO vs Russia: NATO से आमने-सामने की जंग के मूड में पुतिन, इन तीन देशों पर रूसी हमले खतरा बढ़ा, पढ़िए डिटेल

Image Source : PTI FILE PHOTO NATO vs Russia NATO vs Russia: यूक्रेन और रूस के बीच चल रहे भीषण युद्ध के कारण नाटो देशों के साथ भी रूस का तनाव अब बढ़ता जा रहा है। रूस ने लड़ाई तेज कर दी है और वह लातविया,  लिथुआनिया और एस्टोनिया पर हमला करके उन पर भी कब्जा करना चाहता है। यही नहीं, रूस स्वीडन के कुछ इलाकों को भी ​हथियाना चाहता है। दरअसल, NATO में शामिल होने को लेकर पुतिन स्वीडन को धमकी दे चुके हैं। …

View On WordPress

Shaykovka Air Force Base, Russia

Russia Bars Ukrainian Operators From Zaporizhzhia: Jeremiah 12

March 2024By Kelsey Davenport The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has raised concerns that Russia’s decision to cut staff at the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant is compromising nuclear safety and security. IAEA Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi visited the facility on Feb. 7, a week after Russia announced that workers employed by Energoatom, the…

View On WordPress

U.S. sending depleted uranium rounds to Ukraine

View On WordPress

Russia's Typhoon-Class Missile Submarine Is Something the Navy Can't Match

Russia's Typhoon-Class nuclear submarines were a vessel the U.S. Navy could never match in terms of size and total tonnage. They carried a massive amount of Nuclear Missiles.

— By Peter Suciu | Monday January 22, 2024

Image: Shutterstock

A Big Deal: The Russian Navy's Typhoon-Class — Nearly a year ago, Russia decommissioned the Project 941 Akula (NATO reporting name Typhoon) heavy nuclear-powered missile-carrying submarine cruiser Dmitry Donskoy several years earlier than expected. In fact, it had been only three years ago that the Kremlin announced the boat would remain in service until at least 2026, even as its role was reportedly limited to that of a weapons test platform for the new Borei-, Borei-A-, Yasen-and Yasen-M-class submarines.

In February 2023, it was officially confirmed that Dmitry Donskoy was decommissioned in February due to cost considerations. The submarine had served for more than 40 years in the Northern Fleet.

Initially designated the TK-208, she was the lead vessel of the Soviet third-generation Akula-class (Russian for "Shark"). She entered service in 1981 with the Soviet Navy, and after a 12-year overhaul and refit that began in 1990, she reentered service in 2002 as the Dmitry Donskoy, named after the Grand Duke of Moscow Dmitry Donskoy (1359–1389), the reputed founder of Moscow.

According to Russian media, Dmitry Donskoy initially carried D-19 strategic intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) as its basic armament. Following its upgrade under Project 941UM, it was involved in the tests of the seaborne Bulava ICBM.

Typhoon-Class: Project 941 Boats: The Sevmash Shipyard built six of a planned seven Project 941 submarines for the Russian Navy, and all were operational with the Northern Fleet. Though the oldest of the submarines, the Dmitriy Donskoy was also the last of the class to remain in service.

The TK-202, TK-12 – later renamed the Simbirsk – and T-13 were withdrawn from active service between 1996 and 2009, and scrapped with the financial support of the United States. Two other boats: the TK-17/Arkhangelsk and TK-20/Severstal remained in service until they were decommissioned circa 2013. A seventh boat, TK-210, was laid down but scrapped before completion.

With a displacement of 48,000 tons, a length of 175 meters (nearly 600 feet), a 23-meter beam, and a 12-meter draught, the Typhoon-class was the largest class of submarines ever built. Developed with multiple pressure hulls, including five inner hulls situated inside a superstructure of two parallel main hulls, the Typhoon-class was also wider than any other submarine ever built. The submarines were powered by OK-650 pressurized-water nuclear reactors, two 50,000 horsepower steam turbines, and four 3,200 KW turbogenerators and this provides the boat with the ability to sail at a speed of up to 22.2 knots on the surface and 27 knots whilst submerged.

Each contained nineteen compartments, including a strengthened module, which housed the main control room as well as an electronic equipment compartment above the main hulls and behind the missile launch tubes. It even was reported that there was a sauna on board as well as a small swimming pool for the crew. The sheer size of the submarines was likely welcomed by the approximately 160 sailors who called the submarine home on voyages lasting 120 days or longer, oftentimes without surfacing for months at a time.

The Typhoon-class subs were designed to counter the United States Navy's Ohio-class subs, which were capable of carrying up to 192 100-kiloton nuclear warheads. By contrast, the Soviet Typhoons could carry a primary cache of 20 RSM-52 SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), each of which contained up to 10 MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) warheads.

Though the Dmitriry Donskoiy has been decommissioned, in 2021, a new sub of the Borei-class has already begun construction; and when launched, will bear the name of the legendary founder of Moscow.

— Peter Suciu is a Michigan-Based Writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs.

Last March, shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, Donald Trump reportedly told a room full of Republican National Committee donors that the US should “put the Chinese flag” on a bunch of military planes and “bomb the shit” out of Russia—and afterward, “we say, China did it, we didn’t do it, and then they start fighting with each other, and we sit back and watch.” Maybe you remember this, because it was a fucking insane thing to say. Or maybe you don’t, because Trump has said and done fucking insane things on a near-daily basis for many years now. Either way, it seems that this was not a one-off, and that suggesting the US attack another country and blame it on someone else is reportedly very much the 2024 presidential candidate’s thing.

In a new section of his 2020 book on Trump, as obtained by NBC News, New York Times correspondent Michael Schmidt reveals that Trump spent much of 2017 suggesting “behind closed doors in the Oval office” that he wanted to attack North Korea. The then-President, Schmidt writes in the soon-to-be released afterword to Donald Trump v. The United States: Inside the Struggle to Stop a President, “cavalierly discussed the idea of using a nuclear weapon against North Korea, saying that if he took such an action, the administration could blame someone else for it to absolve itself of responsibility.”

For his part, John Kelly reportedly attempted to explain to his boss why that probably wouldn’t work, noting that “It’d be tough to not have the finger pointed at us,” but, of course, the then-White House Chief of Staff was using reason and logic, two things that haven’t typically worked on Trump. Still, according to Schmidt, Kelly tried, bringing in “the military’s top leaders to the White House to brief Trump about how war between the US and North Korea could easily break out, as well as the enormous consequences of such a conflict. But the argument about how many people could be killed had ‘no impact on Trump.’” Nor did the threat of economic blowback; according to the book’s update, informed of why all of this would be a very bad idea, the president would still “turn back to the possibility of war, including at one point raising to Kelly the possibility of launching a preemptive military attack against North Korea.”

Last May, less than two months after the former guy reportedly floated the idea of attacking Russia and blaming it on China, we learned that, according to former-Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Trump asked, on at least two occasions, if the military could “shoot missiles into Mexico to destroy the drug labs,” saying, “They don’t have control of their own country.” Told all the various reasons this idea was a no-go, the then-President reportedly insisted that they could do it “quietly,” adding: “no one would know it was us.” Informed that, yes, people would know it was the US, Trump apparently responded that he would simply lie and say the US didn’t do it.

Anyway, all this would maybe be neither here nor there if Trump was simply an ex-president whose patently insane and wildly dangerous notions were in the past, and no longer posed a risk to the United States—but unfortunately, he’s not!

"The wedding of the Russian and American nuclear weapons' superstars was a small affair, with restricted media access. Without the brinkmanship and rough posturing of the Cold War era, the public has largely been anesthetized into believing the nuclear arms race is over. On the contrary, we are in the midst of what anthropologist Hugh Gusterson calls the 'Second Nuclear Age.' Nuclear research and development were better funding in 2011 than at the height of the Cold War. In the United States, the federal government plans to spend $700 Billion on nuclear weapons development in the coming decade. Not to be outgunned, the Russian government projects an outlay of $650 Billion to revamp its military, much of that to be spent on strategic nuclear weapons. As Lawrence Korb, a former Pentagon official in the Reagan administration, put it, 'The Cold War is over, and the military-industrial complex has won.' -- Kate Brown, Plutopia

{D-Q Note}: Nato Tactics in Ukraine #7

21 October 2022

Is Putin’s military preparing to use tactical nuclear weapons in/near Kherson to end Ukrainian military momentum in the area?

Or, is Moscow planning real threats of use in Kherson, and from the north in Belarus re: Kyiv, as a way of imposing itself on Ukraine?

How should Ukraine’s allies plan to respond?

                                                        *

For this blogger there has been an alarming set of developments the last few days.

First, the UK Defence Minister dashed to Washington, DC urgently last weekend for consultations.

Second, Russian commanders in Kherson made unusual, live televised addresses in Russia indicating the severe problems for Russian forces in the west of Kherson, as if preparing citizens for the existential threat defence for use of nuclear weapons in current Russian military doctrine.

Third, Russia has set upon evacuating all 60000 plus residents of west Kherson as if preparing the ground for extraordinary conflict.

Fourth, nuclear weapons have now been re-fitted to Belarussian military aircraft stationed to Kyiv’s north in addition to the new joint Russian-Belarus expeditionary force.

Fifth, EU leaders (including Macron of France) and some US military personnel have lowered the costs of usage of such weapons by openly indicating they would not respond with nuclear counter-strikes.

This blogger hopes these signs are not pointing in this direction, but their confluence is a cause for severe alarm.

I am hesitant to write this because I do not want to leave the reader with the idea that I support the use of nuclear weapons. I do not. But the people of the United States, thanks to inept and corrupt political leadership, live under the fantasy that we are still in the strategic world that existed in the 1990s, when it was understood that a first-strike nuclear attack by the United States or Russia against the other would result in an unstoppable response that would leave both countries devastated and confront the world with a possible nuclear winter. In other words, Mutual Assured Destruction.

But then George W. Bush happened. In June of 2001, George W. Bush unilaterally abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. If your are younger than 40 years old, you probably have no memory of the ABM Treaty. Here’s a quick refresher:

Signed in 1972 by Washington and Moscow to slow the nuclear arms race, the ABM Treaty barred both superpowers from deploying national defenses against long-range ballistic missiles and from building the foundation for such a defense. The treaty was based on the premise that if either superpower constructed a strategic defense, the other would build up its offensive nuclear forces to offset the defense. The superpowers would therefore quickly be put on a path toward a never-ending offensive-defensive arms race as each tried to balance its counterpart’s action.

I remember Bush’s first year in office clearly. My writing at the time was focused on the Bush Administration’s utter neglect of counter terrorism en lieu of focusing on developing a missile defense system. That was the priority of the Bush National Security team in 2001 until 9-11 happened. The Bush Team ignored the CIA warnings that Bin Laden was planning to hit the United States and only convened its first inter-agency meeting on terrorism on September 10:

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US was the title of the President’s Daily Brief prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency and given to U.S. President George W. Bush on Monday, August 6, 2001. The brief warned, 36 days before the September 11 attacks, of terrorism threats from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, including “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for a hijacking” of U.S. aircraft.[1]

In the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks, the Bush Administration pivoted to a perverse counter terrorism policy highlighted by invading Afghanistan and going to war with Iraq. The new CT policy shifted the U.S. Government’s defense policy from building and deploying the ballistic missile defense system that was Bush and Cheney’s dream in the first 8 months of their Administraion, to combating terrorism and nation building. Billions of dollars that could have been spent on a new ABM system were gobbled up with feckless military efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq and other back waters in the the Third world.

What did Russia do? Initially, the folks in Moscow complained:

Senior Kremlin spokesman, Sergei Yastrzhhembsky said Moscow will voice regret about the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty, but would otherwise remain calm. Mr. Yastrzhembsky said Russia’s own nuclear arsenal is sufficient to protect the country in the future. The chief of the Russian General Staff, General Anatoly Kvashnin says U.S. withdrawal from ABM will have an impact on strategic stability. General Kvasnin says it will open the way for some countries to embark on an international arms race. But, he says it will not threaten Russia’s security. Some Russian politicians are less restrained. Duma Deputy Vladimir Lukin of the liberal Yabloka Party describes the U.S. move as a major mistake. Mr. Lukin says ‘it’s worse than a crime, it’s a mistake.” He accuses the U.S. of using Russian assistance in the anti-terror coalition and then ignoring Russian concerns on other issues, such as the ABM treaty.

And then Russia did what Russians do–they created a robust, echeloned ABM defense. My friend, Andrei Martyanov, offers a general description Russia’s response in his terrific book, Losing Military Supremacy:

“Furthermore, if in the naval field the United States still maintains some strong positions, not least through the sheer size of her navy, the current situation and trends are even worse in the other military-technological fields. The F-35 or Littoral Combat Ship disaster are just few indications of the overall slide in American conventional capabilities, such as American air defense for the US proper which is simply non-existent—a rather telling fact for the nation which thought it didn’t need to have one. This shouldn’t be mistaken with anti-ballistic missile defense which does exist in the US—which is absolutely useless against sea- and air-launched land attack cruise missiles which have the capability to attack crucial American military infrastructure—a capability Russia demonstrated to dramatic effect in Syria. Unlike Russia which boasts arguably the best, deeply echeloned, national air defense, which today deploys the best anti-air and anti-missile complexes in the word, American shores are virtually defenseless. Deployment of batteries of the Patriot PAC-3 system, whose reputation is not very high to start with, or of the AEGIS ships along the American shoreline, does not provide a guarantee against conventional or even nuclear retaliation against the US proper in case of a major conflict. With the project 885 Severodvinsk-class nuclear-powered submarines coming on-line, together with the modernized project 949A class, all armed with the latest TLAMs, it is very difficult to foresee any measure which can realistically secure the US proper from a massive cruise missile attack.”

So, here is the critical question–Can the US block a nuclear missile?

A new study sponsored by the American Physical Society concludes that U.S. systems for intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles cannot be relied on to counter even a limited nuclear strike and are unlikely to achieve reliability within the next 15 years.

If you are a Russian military planner, you realize that M.A.D is no longer a reality. In the event that Russia believed it faced a genuine existential threat from the West from a nuclear strike, even a tactical hit, the Russian military could present President Putin with a viable plan that would destroy the U.S. nuclear response with limited (albeit horrific) damage to Russia. I am not suggesting that Russia would walk away unscathed. But Russia, with a field tested, integrated anti-ballistic missile defense system, would have a better than even chance of surviving a nuclear exchange with the United States.

I will repeat–this is a last resort action and I am steadfastly opposed to it. But I think it should be part of the public discussion. Too many ignorant pundits and politicians in the West disparage Russia’s military capabilities as second rate at best. Jeffrey Lewis, writing in Foreign Policy four years ago, understood the reality of the moment:

“The real genesis of Russia’s new generation of bizarre nuclear weapons lies not in the most recent Nuclear Posture Review, but in the George W. Bush administration’s decision in 2001 to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and the bipartisan failure by both the Bush and Obama administrations to engage meaningfully with the Russians over their concerns about American missile defenses. Putin said as much in his remarks. “During all these years since the unilateral U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty,” Putin explained, “we have been working intensively on advanced equipment and arms, which allowed us to make a breakthrough in developing new models of strategic weapons.” Those technological breakthroughs are now here. Sadly, we’re never got the diplomatic ones we needed.”

The war in Ukraine has given Russia a stage to showcase some of its advanced weaponry, such as the hypersonic Kinzhal. This missile has hit targets in Ukraine before the air raid warnings went off. Andrei Martyanov explains:

“many true professionals were gasping for the air when the Dagger (Kinzhal) was unveiled. This is a complete game changer geopolitically, strategically, operationally, tactically and psychologically. It was known for some time that the Russian Navy was already deploying a revolutionary M=8-capable 3M22 Zircon anti-shipping missile. As impressive and virtually uninterceptable by any air defenses the Zircon is, the Kinzhal is simply shocking in its capabilities. This, most likely based on the famed Iskander airframe, M=10+ capable, highly maneuverable, aero-ballistic missile with a range of 2000 kilometers, carried by MiG-31BMs, just rewrote the book on naval warfare. It made large surface fleets and combatants obsolete. No, you are not misreading it. No air-defense or anti-missile system in the world today (maybe with the exception of the upcoming S-500 specifically designed for the interception of hyper-sonic targets) is capable of doing anything about it, and, most likely, it will take decades to find the antidote. More specifically, no modern or prospective airdefense system deployed today by any NATO fleet can intercept even a single missile with such characteristics. A salvo of 5-6 such missiles guarantees the destruction of any[…]”

M.A.D. is dead. Let us pray that we survive.

It’s been a year since the Russians invaded Ukraine and launched the biggest conventional war in Europe since the Nazis. One of the things that I think we’ve all worried about in that time is the underlying problem of nuclear weapons.

This is a nuclear-armed power at war with hundreds of thousands of people in the middle of Europe. This is the nightmare that American foreign policy has dreaded since the beginning of the nuclear age.

And I think people have kind of put it out of their mind, how potentially dangerous this conflict is, which is understandable, but also, I think, takes us away from thinking about something that is really the most important foreign problem in the world today.

During the Cold War, we would’ve thought about that every day, but these days, people just don’t think about it, and I think they should.

"The Biden administration finds itself in the untenable position of supporting Ukraine, no matter the cost (literally!) while tiptoeing around anything that could be construed as provocative of Russia. 'Passive escalation' is still escalation, however, and stands in contrast to a negotiated settlement. The U.S.’s refusal to concede its post-Cold War status as unipolar hegemon and accept limits to its power means it will stay the course, even if that course leads to nuclear war.

...

"Bizarrely, most of the criticism directed at the White House’s approach in Ukraine is that it has been too cautious and too ineffective. Even if we are mere minutes from midnight on the Doomsday Clock, Kori Schalke of the American Enterprise Institute writes in The New York Times we should remove the 'constraints' on our support for Ukraine and forgo 'passive escalation' for the more aggressive variety. Meanwhile, on the U.S. left, there is virtually no anti-war movement to speak of. Too scared of being called 'Putin apologists,' most celebrate the so-called 'guardrails' Biden has placed on U.S. policy regarding Ukraine. It is like saying the descent to Hell is safe because Satan has added banisters. The manner in which nuclear war begins—recklessly or responsibly—is irrelevant, next to taking every step to make sure it never happens."

Iskander missiel sys strike Ukraine military targets

boomers and gen-xers always said shit like "you've never had to deal with the threat of nuclear war hanging over your head"

like... are ya happy now?

Russia tests nuclear missile from new submarine

View On WordPress

The Post-Nuclear War Russian Language

Senior Russian State TV presenter discusses possibility of Nuclear War (see below)

Anyone in Russia with access to nuclear fallout shelters might want to take some Chinese phrase books along with them so that they can communicate with their captors when they eventually emerge from hiding.

Oligarchs and other rich members of the Russian Mafia might even consider plastic surgery (if there's still time for it, that is!) in order to make themselves more pleasing to look at by their future masters.

On second thoughts, I'm not so sure this second suggestion is worth the effort!

I mean, Russian soldiers are already physically indistinguishable from their Ukrainian "brothers and sisters" but that didn't stop them from committing war crimes in Bucha and elsewhere, did it?

In a post-nuclear Russia, I imagine any survivors would initially be organised by being rounded up by the Chinese and then sent via "special military transportations" (aka death marches) to "special military accommodations" (aka concentration camps).

Here, anyone who survived the marches but found to be unsuitable for slave labour would be killed.

And there wouldn't be any more "Russian" babies: first they would be half-Chinese, then three-quarters Chinese, and so on.

Food for thought, Vladimir Putin - and I'm sure Xi Jinping finds it so too but from a different perspective:

With a population of over 1.4 billion people, he'll be drooling over possibilities that include the concept of "lebensraum" - perhaps you've heard of it, Vladimir...

---

Extract from the UK's Independent newspaper article, Russian state TV claims Putin is more likely to launch nuclear war than accept defeat in Ukraine, published on the 28th of April 2022:

"Vladimir Putin is more likely to pursue all-out nuclear warfare rather than concede defeat to Ukraine, a top Russian state TV editor has said.   Margarita Simonyan, editor of state broadcaster RT and one of the Kremlin's highest-profile media bosses, made the remarks on TV on Wednesday night - declaring that Mr Putin unleashing a nuclear strike is 'more probable' than failing its so-called special military operation in Ukraine.   The remarks added to a pattern of escalating rhetoric on both sides as Russia continues to warn the west of 'lightning fast' consequences over interfering in its ongoing invasion.

'Either we lose in Ukraine,' Ms Simonyan said, 'or the Third World War starts. I think World War Three is more realistic, knowing us, knowing our leader.'"