I like your approach of translating Russian media sources and citing them. I seem to have missed a train derailment, as RT claims 3 (instead of the two I mention).
However, your headline over emphasizes: "Russian high officials greenlight use of nukes"
You quote Dmitry Rogozin and I presume you mean this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Rogozin] Rogozin. He is playing to elements of the Russian far right and invoking Russia's nuclear doctrine:
"in accordance with our doctrine, we have every right to use tactical nuclear weapons."
You say "Rogozin explained that the use of tactical nuclear weapons is necessary to destroy the offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine" but you dont quote Rogozin here. This would be alarming, but you have no quote.
Your claim is, however, implied by '“But there is no other option, it seems to me, at the moment,” Rogozin said.'
These are the two sections of the article which relate to encouragement to use nuclear weapons. They are by one person, Rogozin, who is a politician in a (I'm assuming here) minor party which is not in government.
Contrary to western belief, Russia is not some monopoly or gulag. There is broad political debate and one can expect some elements of its political mix to use the attack on the Kremlin to advance various ideas in furtherance to their political aims, which is what I believe we are seeing here.
This is what I was implying by "They can let Medvedev mouth off and encourage everyone to blow a little steam,".
So, keep up your reporting, I like it. I, however, do not share your alarm.
Hi, Rogozin was not the official I was focussed on actually. Volodin -- the Duma speaker -- said ANY arms necessary, and that was a little scary because it does not rule out nukes. Of course, we know Russia can ONLY use tactical nukes, and probably not even. The email I got from Crimea said the people are restless and may try to overthrow the govt. I do not believe any such rumor but this whole business with tough statements is, just as in the US, PR. There is not indication that it will actually happen, but if the West (incl Kiev) THINKS it might, it will throw the fear of the Lord in them and that is good!
Thank you full and interesting article. I print out those like this as it makes it easier to remember facts to share in conversation. With so many of my friends stuck in TV wonderland, there’s an even greater need to articulate another point of view.
Careful! There are not too many "facts" in this article. There is plenty of well informed opinion and reasonable inference from observation and a bit of "makes logical sense" and "is likely".
Take my claim that the drone did not hit the flag pole. Well, it moves past the flag pole before it explodes, its path does not deviate that we can see, the flag pole does not visibly move and seems undamaged. But, the drone may have "clipped" the flag pole and thus did "hit" it. Facts are tricky things.
Take my claim that Ukraine has lost 25% of its territory. Well, this is false on its face, for if by chance this is correct in one moment it is false in the next as the figure is fixed but territory is constantly changing hands. A fact might be "lost more than 15% and less than 35% of its territory". But, even then its tricky. I would consider Crimea a part of Russia. The fact that it was part of Ukraine in 2013 was due to an internal decision in the USSR with its transfer from the Russian to the Ukrainian Soviet State. I don't specify a date range on my claim either. So, is Crimea included in this statement of percentage of territory lost or not? Facts are tricky things.
I'm glad you found the article interesting and I stand by the obvious meaning of what I've said. May I suggest that you listen to and/or read other opinions and come to your own conclusions. This is the point of the Sources section, wherein are provided other opinions I consider well informed who often provide different interpretations than my own.
A number of Russian officials are trying to say this drone attack merits a (tactical?) nuclear response. https://donhank.substack.com/p/special-report-russian-high-officials
Hi Dan,
I like your approach of translating Russian media sources and citing them. I seem to have missed a train derailment, as RT claims 3 (instead of the two I mention).
However, your headline over emphasizes: "Russian high officials greenlight use of nukes"
You quote Dmitry Rogozin and I presume you mean this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Rogozin] Rogozin. He is playing to elements of the Russian far right and invoking Russia's nuclear doctrine:
"in accordance with our doctrine, we have every right to use tactical nuclear weapons."
You say "Rogozin explained that the use of tactical nuclear weapons is necessary to destroy the offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine" but you dont quote Rogozin here. This would be alarming, but you have no quote.
Your claim is, however, implied by '“But there is no other option, it seems to me, at the moment,” Rogozin said.'
These are the two sections of the article which relate to encouragement to use nuclear weapons. They are by one person, Rogozin, who is a politician in a (I'm assuming here) minor party which is not in government.
Contrary to western belief, Russia is not some monopoly or gulag. There is broad political debate and one can expect some elements of its political mix to use the attack on the Kremlin to advance various ideas in furtherance to their political aims, which is what I believe we are seeing here.
This is what I was implying by "They can let Medvedev mouth off and encourage everyone to blow a little steam,".
So, keep up your reporting, I like it. I, however, do not share your alarm.
Hi, Rogozin was not the official I was focussed on actually. Volodin -- the Duma speaker -- said ANY arms necessary, and that was a little scary because it does not rule out nukes. Of course, we know Russia can ONLY use tactical nukes, and probably not even. The email I got from Crimea said the people are restless and may try to overthrow the govt. I do not believe any such rumor but this whole business with tough statements is, just as in the US, PR. There is not indication that it will actually happen, but if the West (incl Kiev) THINKS it might, it will throw the fear of the Lord in them and that is good!
Thank you full and interesting article. I print out those like this as it makes it easier to remember facts to share in conversation. With so many of my friends stuck in TV wonderland, there’s an even greater need to articulate another point of view.
Sarah,
Careful! There are not too many "facts" in this article. There is plenty of well informed opinion and reasonable inference from observation and a bit of "makes logical sense" and "is likely".
Take my claim that the drone did not hit the flag pole. Well, it moves past the flag pole before it explodes, its path does not deviate that we can see, the flag pole does not visibly move and seems undamaged. But, the drone may have "clipped" the flag pole and thus did "hit" it. Facts are tricky things.
Take my claim that Ukraine has lost 25% of its territory. Well, this is false on its face, for if by chance this is correct in one moment it is false in the next as the figure is fixed but territory is constantly changing hands. A fact might be "lost more than 15% and less than 35% of its territory". But, even then its tricky. I would consider Crimea a part of Russia. The fact that it was part of Ukraine in 2013 was due to an internal decision in the USSR with its transfer from the Russian to the Ukrainian Soviet State. I don't specify a date range on my claim either. So, is Crimea included in this statement of percentage of territory lost or not? Facts are tricky things.
I'm glad you found the article interesting and I stand by the obvious meaning of what I've said. May I suggest that you listen to and/or read other opinions and come to your own conclusions. This is the point of the Sources section, wherein are provided other opinions I consider well informed who often provide different interpretations than my own.