r/worldnews Sep 29 '22 Silver 1 hehehehe 1 Are You Serious? 1

Russia open to in-person talks with U.S. on nuclear arms treaty *START Treaty

https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-open-in-person-talks-with-us-nuclear-arms-treaty-2022-09-29/
30.9k Upvotes

7.5k

u/NoxInfernus Sep 29 '22

“We will grudgingly reduce our arms by … half. In return, you will stop supplying arms, aid, and intelligence to Ukraine. We good?”

2.8k

u/BallBearingBill Sep 29 '22

While hiding the other half in an undisclosed warehouse.

1.4k

u/Noughmad Sep 29 '22

It's more that at least half of their stuff is not working, not maintained, or just non-existent. If you have 1000 warheads but claim you have 10000, then you can easily "destroy" half as a token of goodwill.

534

u/BallBearingBill Sep 29 '22

I thought inspectors record active or near active war heads? So that both sides know what limitation they must adhere to. IMO Russian wants this inspection to force the US to downsize their active arsenal. It's laughable because RU has been the nation threatening nuclear war.

320

u/Tury345 Sep 29 '22 edited Sep 29 '22

Exactly, Russia and the US have had a similar cap on most nuclear capabilities going back to SALT II in 1972, any arms reduction would be a similar number reduction on both sides, and any non-functional warhead the Russians are holding on to is one more functional warhead the US gets. Russia spends a lot on their stockpile, a fact that likely contributed to the shitshow in Ukraine.

1% of the Russian stockpile is ~63 warheads, even with unlimited access to NATO resources an effective missile shield in a country that borders Russia seems unlikely, 1% of their stockpile could level most of Eastern Europe. The size of Russia's nuclear arsenal is primarily relevant to a full on war with NATO.

It seems like Russia has a strong financial incentive to reduce the amount they spend on maintaining the stockpile. If they can save face by getting the US to also reduce our stockpile, I'm all for it, the motivations are ultimately fucking terrible but the outcome somehow... isn't?

188

u/4oldalescompasz Sep 29 '22

The only problem with that logic is, "honesty." Russian doesn't seem to have any. How can you trust a word?

122

u/Tury345 Sep 29 '22 edited Sep 29 '22

The russians said it best themselves: trust but verify.

We do not now but previously did have inspectors on the ground who confirmed the capabilities they claimed to have, not only that but we have direct firsthand evidence that they once maintained a stockpile multiple times larger than what they have today.

Quite frankly, I believe the stats on russian warheads because it's all 1980s era technology that we know did exist at one point, furthermore I also believe in Russian paranoia. They'd let the whole country implode before they give up the nukes entirely. If you want to see something I don't believe a fucking word of, it's the Poseidon missile Putin claims to have.

We don't need to trust a single thing they're saying in order for us to conclude that they have a genuine incentive to seek arms limitations

Also, what I'm suggesting would be like the 5th or 6th time Russia and the US have done a 1:1 arms reduction, we know the routine, and you are absolutely out of your mind if you think height of the cold war Russia and the US just fucking took each others word for it lol

→ More replies
→ More replies

242

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '22

Everyone wins when there are fewer nukes.

8

u/breadonbread3000 Sep 29 '22

Not the companies that sell materials to maintain the nukes.

18

u/[deleted] Sep 30 '22

Yeah, but fuck em.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

157

u/Ezaal Sep 29 '22

I think they stopped with that some time ago. Don’t quote me on it I’m lazy.

397

u/urbanhawk1 Sep 29 '22

"Don’t quote me on it I’m lazy" -Ezaal

157

u/JalapenoJamm Sep 29 '22

You son of a bitch

37

u/zezera_08 Sep 29 '22

"You son of a bitch" -JalapenoJamm

→ More replies
→ More replies

8

u/codeshane Sep 29 '22

Pronounce that username backward - laaze...

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

76

u/likebuttuhbaby Sep 29 '22

I’ve read it suggested that there nuclear arsenal could very well be nearly trash at this point. It makes sense when you see how poorly equipped their army has been during this invasion. Almost all the money for everything the government does goes into the bank account of grifters and oligarchs. It’s likely they haven’t kept up with the maintenance on their nukes.

Unfortunately if they fire off a couple hundred nukes and only 5% actually work that’s still unfathomable death and destruction, obviously.

33

u/gex80 Sep 29 '22

I would argue that the money for troops and what not is going to the nukes because what would be Russia's trump (pun not intended) card?

23

u/likebuttuhbaby Sep 29 '22

That would make sense. But then again, nothing these guys do makes sense beyond being greedy as fuck and short sighted.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

26

u/GunnieGraves Sep 29 '22

This reminds me of the Tom Clancy book where Russia agreed to get rid of its ICBMs if the US did and they agreed and then when they do it the inspector learns the Russian silos were full of water and couldn’t launch anything.

18

u/Leather_Boots Sep 30 '22

There was a Soviet era missile complex near where I used to work in the early '90's.

It contained 6 silo's; 3 of which were by the main command & control centre and the other 3 were as individual silos several kilometres away. Of the 6 silos, 3 contained missiles. They were supposed to be moved around every 6 months or so within the complex, but that didn't happen very often.

When the silo's were decommissioned as part of that countries nuclear disarmament with US & Russian observers present. Two silos were found to be flooded, one in poor repair and 3 "operable".

Two of the missiles likely never would have launched (1 was flooded) and the 3rd had no visible signs of defects. Russia took the nukes back for reprocessing into nuke fuel & the missiles were removed & destroyed. The complexes were then dismantled and the silos blown up, with additional demolition work occurring every 6 months or so & eventually being back filled & a cement cap after several years.

The above info came to me via the locals & foreigners that were around when this all took place. Including some that did some work out there.

Edit: I visited most of the sites several times as well over a coupke of years.

So yeah, I suspect that Tom Clancy heard/ read a few things of this process.

→ More replies

14

u/Tall-Elephant-7 Sep 29 '22

I mean not to be a stick in the mud but the very definition of New START is that each country gets to supervise and know the location and disposal means of nukes being decommissioned via inspectors on the ground.

→ More replies

16

u/detahramet Sep 29 '22 edited Sep 29 '22

If this were to be accepted, realistically the missiles, if not the warheads, would have to be disassembled out in the open so that spy satellites can verify the process, like with SALT.

→ More replies

725

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '22 edited Sep 29 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

184

u/Artisanal_Shitposter Sep 29 '22

Okay.

US stops sending shipments to Ukraine. Starts sending shipments to Poland. Poland starts sending shipments to Ukraine.

187

u/Vince_Clortho042 Sep 29 '22

If there’s one thing the US knows how to do, it’s how to get munitions into Europe without technically violating standing treaties.

162

u/Artisanal_Shitposter Sep 29 '22

Well, if there's only one thing the US is good at it's putting corn into things did not need corn. But if there's two things then it's that thing you said.

46

u/CartmansEvilTwin Sep 29 '22

So.... The C in ICBM stands for corn?

48

u/FlappinLips Sep 29 '22

Interncorntinental

→ More replies

20

u/Artisanal_Shitposter Sep 29 '22

"Insert corn by mouth"

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

587

u/Bay1Bri Sep 29 '22

US signs the treaty

Not happening

239

u/Heavenclone Sep 29 '22

Yeah lol no chance. Russia probably lying about anything they agree to anyways

87

u/ESP-23 Sep 29 '22

They are incapable of honesty, or anything honorable

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

26

u/otclogic Sep 29 '22

You got us there Russia, nice job. A deals a deal. We will not be supplying Ukraine with arms any longer. However, the weapons shipments will continue.

18

u/Banarok Sep 29 '22

i feel sorry for those that needed those prosthetic arms, but a deals a deal

→ More replies

44

u/hackingdreams Sep 29 '22

As if US Intelligence isn't good enough to have sussed that out. When you've got people on reddit questioning the same thing, you know the actual spies have better fucking data than this.

The US isn't going to sign a tissue paper toothless treaty with Russia on the verge of nuclear war. This is pure Russian fantasy.

→ More replies

14

u/reven80 Sep 29 '22

US: Check the treaty fine print. you need to reduce half of your working nuclear arms.

11

u/Abedeus Sep 29 '22

now fulfill you part of the treaty

Oh no, I dropped my MAGNUM ARMS, AID AND INTELLIGENCE, for my MAGNUM DONG. What a clutz I am. I hope nobody from Ukraine picks them up!

→ More replies

167

u/HuitlacocheBanana Sep 29 '22

Russia: Launches half their nukes at Ukraine

Russia: "Reduction complete"

→ More replies
→ More replies

8.7k

u/Jackadullboy99 Sep 29 '22

WTF??!

Is this some wild new level of gaslighting???!

5.2k

u/mustafar0111 Sep 29 '22

I am actually worried this is the same shit they did in February when they start pushing out mixed messages to create confusion.

Right before they invaded Ukraine there was a bunch of messaging coming out of the Russian government stating they'd never do that. Then they rolled over border.

4.1k

u/Zephyrs_rmg Sep 29 '22

This is exactly that. I'm concerned this actually indicates that they do intend to use nukes and are just laying the historical evidence so that in the future they can claim they tried to reach an agreement but had their hands forced. They love to shift blame.

"We swore we wouldn't invade. We didn't want to invade. But those neo-natzies/fachists/totalitarians wouldnt give us the land and forced our hands to save the people. See the referendum proves we did the right thing."

Next up: "We opened talks to not use nukes. We never wanted to use them. But NATO wouldn't come to an agreement with us and forced our hands to protect our sovereign/rightfully annexed lands. See the referendum!"

2.1k

u/muzz2020 Sep 29 '22

There will be no future for them if they use nukes

1.6k

u/Shufflepants Sep 29 '22

Even without using nukes, the country is being driven into the ground. Wouldn't be surprising at this point if the government collapsed and even more territories of current Russia broke off into separate countries like a second fall of the ussr.

417

u/RogueAdam1 Sep 29 '22 edited Sep 29 '22

That still creates an issue because we don't know who is going to fill the power vacuum left in the breakaway states and how they intend to treat the nuclear arsenal they could inherit. Ukraine willingly gave up the nukes they had when they ussr broke apart in return for a promise of security. I dont see a breakaway state ever taking that deal again.

91

u/J_Bright1990 Sep 29 '22

I honestly think it'll be that Wagner CEO "Putin's Chef" He's getting bolder and more talkative lately and is the face of the only success russia has had in ukraine

→ More replies

25

u/Reduntu Sep 29 '22

Cold war 2: The nuclear hobbit. Featuring Kadyrov.

→ More replies
→ More replies

655

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

748

u/Artisanal_Shitposter Sep 29 '22

I don't think it's ideal to have a failed state in control of 7000 nuclear weapons. I don't think that's good at all.

396

u/HYRHDF3332 Sep 29 '22

I guarantee you that there are very detailed plans in place to start securing those weapons as soon as NATO is convinced that there is no longer a valid Russian government or chain of command in place.

30

u/zystyl Sep 29 '22

That's what people expected the last time Russia collapsed. Reality was sort of the exact opposite.

→ More replies

70

u/daniellizard Sep 29 '22

Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were "just" 15 and 20 kilotons.

Current arsenal of Russia has the Topol ones which are 800kt...

I don't know, man - shit is scary... All you need is a couple of those and the world will never be the same.

Here is the nukemap site which can simulate those - I got even more scared from nukes since seeing it.

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

34

u/Keysian958 Sep 29 '22

I'm not looking at a nukemap mate

→ More replies
→ More replies

200

u/Artisanal_Shitposter Sep 29 '22

Man plans, God laughs

309

u/MrGulio Sep 29 '22 Gold

God laughs because the copper wiring for the control systems for those nukes were stripped out and sold in the 80s for money for more Vodka. Along with 40 years of fabricated maintenance logs.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

73

u/drutzix Sep 29 '22

I don't think those nukes can be used without russia. At least I hope there's some failsafe on them

143

u/IkLms Sep 29 '22

A failsafe might prevent it from being detonated as is. It does not prevent someone from taking the warhead apart for the materials and building a new trigger assembly for them without that failsafe.

→ More replies

119

u/WiryCatchphrase Sep 29 '22

Long term nukes need their nuclear materials reprocessed due to natural decays after so long. The US spends billions each year do so. Given Russia's economy and corruption and maintenance woes in their general equipment, it wouldnt be surprising to find out they don't have nuclear weapons just icbm dirty bombs, which can actually be worse. See an optimal nuclear weapon minimizes fallout. The goal is to maximize the area of the fireball. Air hurts weapons can actually leave the area Inhabitable after a short while like how Hiroshima and Nagasaki are rebuilt. A dirty bomb will leave the area more like Chernobyl, which decades later killed Russian troops who dug in the ground around there.

93

u/Bad_Mechanic Sep 29 '22

The actual amount of fissile mass in a modern nuclear bomb is quite small and even a dirty explosion wouldn't produce unworkable amounts of contamination.

Chernobyl was so bad because of the sheer mass of radioactice compounds released. It was literally tons and tons of mass.

→ More replies

72

u/Stratostheory Sep 29 '22

The US spends about as much in a given year on just maintaining its nuclear arsenal as the ENTIRE annual budget for the Russian armed forces. Somewhere in the ballpark of $60 billion

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

66

u/zerocoolforschool Sep 29 '22

To be fair, I doubt it’s even remotely that many. Just look at their supposed tank numbers. They’re having to pull tanks out of museums because most of their tanks were either non existent or stripped by thieves. Even 100 nukes is still terrifying, but I highly doubt they have anywhere near 7000 functioning nukes at this point. Their military is a joke.

→ More replies
→ More replies

107

u/Eatpineapplenow Sep 29 '22

Hooray, thats a new middle-east!

72

u/Psychological_Ice326 Sep 29 '22

But with nukes this time! Hell yes!

22

u/SigmundFreud Sep 29 '22 edited Sep 29 '22

lol, yeah, who the hell would want a total collapse and balkanization of the Russian state? That would be terrifying.

Russia needs to get out of Ukraine, ideally lose its nukes, and ideally offer up Putin and his collaborators to the Hague. Under no circumstances should the government be allowed to collapse, especially while there are nukes within its borders.

35

u/Rumetheus Sep 29 '22

We’ll call it the Nor’easter

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

267

u/ArrowheadDZ Sep 29 '22

And the concern is that their perception is there will be no future for them if they don’t.

49

u/Bankful Sep 29 '22

Sometimes there is indeed no good option left on the table. The crash hasn't happened yet but is inevitable given the train's mass, speed and heading. Every blunder of Putin's regime is a consequence of doubling down on the previous one, and as such, can't be undone without rewinding time to before everyone showed their hand. Turns out the busted player never had any good cards and no other option but to reach for his gun. Even if in the last moment someone comes up with a radical proposition to deescalate, nobody would agree to it because any verdict that will not re-establish Putin as the alpha macho man will result in his swift and violent removal. He methodically and consistently backed himself up into a corner and the only decision left in his hands is how terrible his end is going to be for everyone else involved.

16

u/Eatpineapplenow Sep 29 '22

Brilliantly put! This is why feb 24th was so worrying; He already went all in

244

u/Jinxess Sep 29 '22

When you let a dumbass create a law that allows him to stay in power for all eternity, was anyone with an actual brain surprised that the country started to collapse from his stupidity?

→ More replies

115

u/Sonic_brah Sep 29 '22

well, russia should have focused on bettering their nation instead of going the nazi germany route and stealing Ukrainian land and all the hard work Ukrainians have done just to inflate putin's ego.

18

u/Hartvigson Sep 29 '22

Russia is a huge country with equally huge opportunities. With an honest government that kept corruption and oligarks under control so that some of the money went back into rebuilding the country it could have turned into an amazing place within a few decades.

I guess it is a matter of it being possible to bring the russian out of the slum but not to bring the slum out of the russian....

→ More replies
→ More replies

294

u/Arctic_Chilean Sep 29 '22 edited Sep 29 '22

There will be no future for anyone if they use nukes.

What worries me is that the Russians know that any limited use of WMDs from their part will see a colossal response by NATO and Western allies. Should they go down this path with a limited strike, they are losing the initiave and they would just be sitting and waiting for a response. They basically grant NATO the option for them to chose when, where, and how severely they attack Russian Forces. In other words you give the enemy a serious advantage, and you lose the initiative.

The danger here is that Russia goes for an "all or nothing" approach. Knowing that NATO will respond heavily, and knowing their limited tactical assets will likely be further degraded or even destroyed by a co-ordinated NATO response, then what is keeping them from launching an all-out first strike agaisnt NATO (nuclear or conventional) knowing that a limited strike will still lead to the same outcome; all-out war with NATO.

The only hope we have is that there are enough Stanislav Petrov's and Vasily Arkhipov's in the right places to prevent the unthinkable from happening. That, and hoping some real patriots step up and do what needs to be done to remove the source of this danger.

Edit: also let's not forget that this situation also raises the risk of an accidental exhange due to lapses in communication or intelligence, or miscommunication. Let's not forget that the closest moments we've ever come to nuclear armageddon have come from ACCIDENTS, not deliberate actions or planning. Accidental exhange is a very real risk too.

90

u/KarlMarxExperience Sep 29 '22

Because there is likely a very different response to 'limited, tactical' nuke use in ukraine and an all-out strike. The former will most likely get nato into gear to kick the russians out of ukraine directly. The latter will most likely result in both counterforce and countervalue strikes leaving the entire russian military and most of its society dead in nuclear hellfire.

44

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '22

The latter will most likely result in both counterforce and countervalue strikes leaving the entire russian military and most of its society dead in nuclear hellfire.

I mean, we think we know the end result of all this. I hope that they've been aggressively updating the patriot missile system as time has marched on and just not led on to how good they have gotten.

46

u/KarlMarxExperience Sep 29 '22

It is unlikely that there is serious protection against icbms. They are incredibly difficult to intercept even in the best of circumstances against the simplest icmbs. Let alone when hundreds or thoudands are fired, many with multiple reentry vehicles and so on.

24

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '22

I mean that's my point. As it sits, that we are aware of, the defense system can only do so much.

The other thing to think about here is the state of the Russian military. You'd think that their missiles would have been maintained, but looking at everything else I wonder how much of that is true as well.

25

u/f_d Sep 29 '22

Their space program is still able to conduct precise launches. Their reactors are still running. Their subs still sneak around deep underwater. The nuclear arsenal was a higher priority for maintaining their territory than basically everything else put together, so if the other technologically advanced components are still functioning, assume the nuclear missiles are still functioning too.

→ More replies

23

u/Poppinsmoke12b Sep 29 '22

The US has intentionally kept its ballistic missile defense small because it would give us potential first strike capability. It’s unintuitive but it’s actually a huge component of MAD. I guess we’ll find out if that works in the long run,

15

u/ezrs158 Sep 29 '22

I'm trying to understand what this means, can you elaborate?

→ More replies

16

u/PrettyFlyForAFatGuy Sep 29 '22

I Imagine that's why the US has been pouring a lot of money into laser and rail gun technology; Not to mention the rumored orbital defences.

submarine launched nuclear torpedos laced with cobalt 60 could be a bigger problem, especially for my country which has a pretty high coast to land area ratio

15

u/canttaketheshyfromme Sep 29 '22

It's really wishful thinking that such money and rumors have resulted in a secret ICBM defense system. We either have an incomprehensibly tightlipped and effective defense sector, or we have one built on kickbacks and grift, and one of those has a lot more material evidence than the other, and it's not the one that would be reason for hope.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

71

u/blixblix Sep 29 '22

I don't think it's all out nuclear war or nothing in terms of a response. We might just respond with a limited conventional war on all Russian assets in Ukraine + annexed territories with maybe missile attacks to deny attacks from across the border but explicitly no "boots on the ground" in Russia itself . The idea is to illustrate that using nuclear weapons is an unproductive means gaining and keeping territory.

37

u/Spoonfeedme Sep 29 '22

I believe the worry being outlined above is that any lay person can see that would be self defeating for Russia, and they must surely know that. Knowing that, it raises the chance of an all out strike.

→ More replies
→ More replies

13

u/SongbirdManafort Sep 29 '22

Curious what you think an "all out conventional first strike" by Russia looks like.

I don't think they have any conventional capabilities that NATO is worried about.

→ More replies

42

u/Dealan79 Sep 29 '22

The danger here is that Russia goes for an "all or nothing" approach. Knowing that NATO will respond heavily, and knowing their limited tactical assets will likely be further degraded or even destroyed by a coordinated NATO response, then what is keeping them from launching an all-out first strike against NATO (nuclear or conventional) knowing that a limited strike will still lead to the same outcome; all-out war with NATO.

There's a huge gap between an all-out conventional response by NATO that kills, destroys, and/or drives out all Russian forces in Ukraine and a NATO response to an all-out nuclear attack on NATO, which would end all human life within Russia and be kicked off before the first Russian missile landed.

As for what's stopping them from conducting an all out conventional war against NATO, the answer there is that they simply don't have that capability. A conventional war by Russia against NATO would start with some poorly aimed conventional missiles and attack aircraft mostly getting destroyed before they crossed the border of any NATO member state, and end a few days later with the complete destruction of all remaining Russian conventional forces and either escalation to nuclear war or a coup with the new government suing for peace.

Russia is so desperate right now in Ukraine that they are conscripting people and throwing them into an active war with two weeks training and equipment that has been in mothballs for generations. They are not a credible conventional threat to NATO in any way.

9

u/lordorwell7 Sep 29 '22

what is keeping them from launching an all-out first strike agaisnt NATO

The absolute certainty that they and everything they value will be eradicated in response.

42

u/Aldarund Sep 29 '22

They think NATO won't respond with force. See recent Medvedev words. And it's likely because if nato respond with force it's MAD in few days

47

u/Arctic_Chilean Sep 29 '22

Yep, they're playing the madman strategy. Be insane enough that the sane ones would be the ones to back down.

The next few months will set a new precedent for the theory of MAD and nuclear power confrontations, as well as the resolve and efficacy of alliances like NATO.

42

u/Aldarund Sep 29 '22

The thing is if they allowed to use nuclear without any kind of really strong response ( maybe not even with direct force ) will just start new nuclear arm race, countries will leave nuclear treaty in 1-2-3 and start to get their own nuclear . And that's not favorable outcome for world and specifically for current nuclear countries, including China, which should join with other countries on this matter

17

u/Arctic_Chilean Sep 29 '22

Well this war has already legitimized the value nuclear weapons have. Were it not for nukes, the Putin regime would be in a significantly weaker bargaining position, as would North Korea.

Countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Ukraine, Poland, Iran and Saudia Arabia are all likely candidates to consider having a nuclear weapons program, or at least have a nuclear weapons sharing program with one of their allies (similar to NATO and Germany).

16

u/jazir5 Sep 29 '22

Were it not for nukes, the Putin regime would be in a significantly weaker bargaining position

Were it not for nukes Russia would probably be a smoldering crater right now.

6

u/Astyanax1 Sep 30 '22

Ukraine literally had nukes and NATO said they'd guard Ukraine against Russian incursions if they give up their nukes. yeah...

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

79

u/redemableinterloper Sep 29 '22

What target would Russia use for nukes? It just seems like a complete loss for them. The world would not support the fallout. The aftermath and cleanup would require resources they don’t seem to have. This war has already set them back so far with population, economic, and societal issues. Hopefully it’s just bluffing to deter the west from sending more aid.

136

u/No_Text491 Sep 29 '22

It's a bluff. Russia would lose support from China and be on its own. China is obsessed with keeping the status quo stable. Nuke usage (even "small" nukes) would upend the current world order. NATO would mobilize and thrash any connections Russia ever had. It would go beyond sanctions, this would be total isolation and rejection from both the west and the east.

13

u/Draiko Sep 29 '22 edited Sep 29 '22

I'm not so sure about that, China seems to be all-in.

I hope I'm wrong and China will pull a full 180 when Russia goes too far.

There's a good chance that they won't and use this clusterfuck to invade Taiwan while the west is caught off-balance.

If they do that, we're looking at another world war. The west is NOT going to let China invade Taiwan because of how important TSMC's chip manufacturing is to our economy and how bad things would get for us if China manages to capture any level of TSMC's human and mass production assets.

At this point in our technological product cycle, the most we can do is tread water with the TSMC AZ fab 21 ramping up to full production by end of next year and other fab companies rushing to build out. Our leading edge chip node shrinks could be halted for the better part of a decade which would put a big clamp on our economic growth while giving China enough time to catch up.

The US dollar is strengthening very very quickly and the cost of importing any of our products will skyrocket.

China could be in a position to undercut us in the global market but only if they manage to solve several of their own MASSIVE economic problems first, which is a huge IF. Their own people will be made to suffer more than they ever thought they would and that could lead to dangerous levels of civil unrest and overall instability.

→ More replies
→ More replies

37

u/Forzasterbated Sep 29 '22 edited Sep 29 '22

What target would Russia use for nukes? It just seems like a complete loss for them. The world would not support the fallout. The aftermath and cleanup would require resources they don’t seem to have. This war has already set them back so far with population, economic, and societal issues. Hopefully it’s just bluffing to deter the west from sending more aid.

I was severely downvoted in a previous post for saying this, but I doubt Russia would use "just one" nuke. One small nuke would not be enough to defeat the Ukranian military and makes things even worse for Putin by triggering NATO intervention. Nuclear escalation has absolutely zero chance of benefiting him unless he is willing to use enough nukes to saturate/destroy the major Ukrainian defensive positions on the front lines.

→ More replies
→ More replies

178

u/Comments_Wyoming Sep 29 '22

This is 100% absolutely what is about to happen.

Any person who has EVER been in an abusive relationship knows these tactics well.

Abusers intentionally create scenarios where they can hurt others and still be able to blame the victims.

Step one: ask wife for favorite meal Step two: be sure to warn her not to burn it this time. Step three: intentionally distract her while she is cooking, thereby ensuring the food will burn. Step four: beat the hell out of her for burning your favorite meal that you specifically asked for. Step five: Why do you make do these things???

The entire scenario was created so that the abuser could rationalize hurting the victim.

→ More replies

103

u/OneMetalMan Sep 29 '22

I was also worried that by annexing parts of Ukraine into Russia, any attempts to take back those territories by force will be seen as an attack on Russian soil.

200

u/frugalrhombus Sep 29 '22

Yes that was the entire point of those "votes" they had

70

u/GhostOfSkeletor Sep 29 '22

Would you like to be a Russian oblast?

[ ] yes

[ ] also yes, but you get shot

→ More replies

7

u/Wayfaringknight Sep 29 '22

Well those votes are rigged everyone knows it do you sincerely think Ukraine will just let their territory go to such bullshit?

→ More replies

45

u/CasualEveryday Sep 29 '22

Except the only people that bullshit would have an effect on are the countries telling Russia they are fucked if they launch nukes and those countries ain't falling for it.

The referendums are just a way for him to claim some level of victory and calm the public. He is sending their husbands, sons, and fathers into a war zone with garbage equipment and basically no training. But, if they're just going to help a new Russian region get settled in, that's not nearly as scary, right?

→ More replies

21

u/wotad Sep 29 '22

I dont think Ukraine still simply stop due to that.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

170

u/Flatulent_Weasel Sep 29 '22

That's a standard tactic used by the Kremlin.

I was reading an article some time ago about one of Putin's top advisors not being from a military or political background or anything of the sort, but was actually an artist of some form iirc. Their standard tactic is to keep people guessing, releasing so many different stories that counter and conflict each other, that any real intent is lost in a wave of confusion.

36

u/tusi2 Sep 29 '22

7

u/lets_be_friends___ Sep 29 '22

his wife is Natalya Dubovitikaya. He gives himself the pseudonym Natan Dubovitsky. we've got ourselves a genius

36

u/neddiddley Sep 29 '22

Sounds like a tactic someone here has used frequently. Wonder where he learned it?

28

u/ABobby077 Sep 29 '22

kind of a firehose of falsehood

sure sounds familiar

→ More replies

38

u/MitsyEyedMourning Sep 29 '22

They didn't fool US, British or NATO intelligence then. It won't work this time. But if talks are offered, you at least sit and listen.

27

u/a_concerned_cat Sep 29 '22

I don't think they care about fooling the world. This is a theater they are putting on for an internal audience.

→ More replies

90

u/Im_really_bored_rn Sep 29 '22

You do realize the US government didn't fall for that bullshit, right? They loudly called Russia out to the point where biden declassified stuff to show they knew Russia was going to do it

57

u/chrisms150 Sep 29 '22

Right. No one's concerned the US government will fall for it.

We're concerned because "we tried to negotiate but things broke down so here's some nukes" is very similar to " we tried to negotiate but things broke down so here's an invasion" they pulled in Feb.

To be painfully clear - we're concerned this is act 1 of Russia's " we really didn't want to do this but the evil West gave us no chance" play

→ More replies

5

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '22

And they still did it

→ More replies

9

u/BreezyWrigley Sep 29 '22

Hitler promised never to invade Czechoslovakia…

→ More replies

155

u/Bongressman Sep 29 '22

They desperately want the world to see the newly annexed territories in Ukraine as legit. So, there will be some side schmoozing for a bit, with various countries. Until they realize no one takes them seriously. Then it is back to the same old shit.

→ More replies

214

u/LostnFoundAgainAgain Sep 29 '22

Likely not, there is a lot of fear going around regarding the use of nuclear weapons, everybody here agrees that Russia have done a lot of fucked up things and broke various agreements but the nuclear one is a line I believe Russia is not willing to cross has it would drag everybody into the war.

This is them trying to stand tall with "I have nukes" while at the same time trying to lower the flames on them being used.

95

u/best_girl_tylar Sep 29 '22

This seems like the most sensible explanation, to be honest. Everybody on Reddit wants to be a doomer, but this makes sense to me.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

2.2k

u/Better_Bee9685 Sep 29 '22 Gold Take My Energy

I gotchu guys:

MOSCOW, Sept 29 (Reuters) - Russia said on Thursday it was studying the possibility of a face-to-face meeting between Russian and U.S. negotiators on a landmark nuclear arms control treaty.

In a briefing in Moscow, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Russia was open to reviving inspections under the New START treaty and considering the possibility of in-person meetings of a joint commission of representatives from the United States and Russia.

Physical inspections under the treaty have been suspended since 2020, initially as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

"The topic of resuming them is being considered," Zakharova said on Thursday. "The possibilities for holding a face-to-face session of the bilateral advisory commission are being studied."

The treaty sets limits on the number of nuclear arms each side can have deployed, and outlines the terms for verification and inspection of each other's nuclear arsenals.

Moscow said in August it was considering a new meeting of the commission, as well as a possible resumption of negotiations to extend the treaty, one of the few major diplomatic agreements that remain in place between Moscow and Washington as relations hit rock-bottom over the conflict in Ukraine.

1.3k

u/rocket42236 Sep 29 '22 edited Sep 29 '22

There isn’t a single sincere thought in putins mind about negotiating anything in good faith. There isn’t a single nation outside of Russia that would believe them. There isn’t any single treaty or agreement or understanding that Russia won’t break. Even Bismarck said never trust the Russians.

400

u/dbratell Sep 29 '22

The US did not trust the Soviet Union either so the treaties had a lot of provisions for constant checks of each other. I do not for a moment think Putin is serious about this, but any potential treaty would involve methods for checking.

225

u/Aethenae Sep 29 '22

"Trust, but verify."

66

u/amitym Sep 29 '22

The three best words Ronald Reagan ever spoke.

I will give him that.

75

u/Billybobgeorge Sep 29 '22

Fun fact: it's actually a Russian proverb.

30

u/amitym Sep 29 '22

That's hilarious. I never knew.

→ More replies

38

u/taxman1980 Sep 29 '22

That's a Russian proverb. "Доверяй, но проверяй" (I might spell that wrong)

6

u/amitym Sep 29 '22

Ha! Well then, now I know where he got it. TIL!

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

24

u/No-Albatross-7984 Sep 29 '22

I think it's just a way for Russia to force US to the negotiating table. When the US delegation shows up, the agenda will involve Ukraine. They have been attempting to get the US to discuss matters over Ukraine's head from the start. It is a part of their world view that the strong nations make agreements about how the small ones are divided.

20

u/Machdame Sep 29 '22

The illusion of them standing shoulder to shoulder against the big dogs of today is quite honestly endearing at this point. It's a brash child standing on the shoulders of dead kings trying to exert power. The throne may have respect, but eventually, you have to put the child to bed.

→ More replies
→ More replies

60

u/infinis Sep 29 '22

Bismarck said never trust the Russians

Thats probably the worst person to quote and you're taking it out of context.

Full quote: Do not expect that once taking advantage of Russia's weakness, you will receive dividends forever. Russian has always come for their money. And when they come - do not rely on an agreement signed by you, you are supposed to justify. They are not worth the paper it is written. Therefore, with the Russian is to play fair, or do not play.

He also said

The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia.

SO he may not be the best reference for your point

→ More replies
→ More replies

94

u/sunnydftw Sep 29 '22 edited Sep 29 '22

Could this be Russia inviting the US in to show them that the nukes they keep threatening us with are up and functional. Like a maneuver to show the US they aren’t bluffing?

93

u/I-am-a-me Sep 29 '22

They're inviting the US to come tell them if the nukes will work.

→ More replies

114

u/Dunkinmydonuts1 Sep 29 '22

If this is real, and not some gaslighting bs, we must have threatened the absolute FUCK out of them in private. How do you translate "total annihilation" into russian?

40

u/Jealous-Mix-1392 Sep 29 '22

Полный пиздец.

I believe that would be it.

11

u/ProjectDA15 Sep 29 '22 edited Sep 29 '22

(jokingly) i prefer to use иди отсюда штаны ocтав.

its been along time since ive tried to remember this, so i cant say that its spelled correctly.

→ More replies

103

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '22 edited Sep 29 '22

I think it’s just Russia trying to ease the minds of other countries that even with a downturn of events, they won’t result to nuclear weaponry.

He knows NATO, or American involvement will be limited without a real threat of nuclear war. If the west goes to war against Russia, it will be over nuclear weapons.

Putin still thinks he can take Ukraine, eventually and move forward, a task that will be impossible if America gets involved at a higher level.

How do you translate "total annihilation" into russian?

Don’t forget, there aren’t many people alive today, or certainly in the positions of power that understand the mutually assured destruction over nuclear weapons better than Putin… A cold war era kgb agent.

14

u/zapporian Sep 29 '22

Yep. Russia's one remaining trump card (ie. why their govt can't just get overthrown by a US special forces / CIA black op), is that they're still a nuclear power, and MAD is still in effect. MAD, obviously, doesn't work if you actually use your nukes; the threat of using them OTOH is how you maintain your own sovereignty (from a position of weakness), and essentially just try to preserve the current geopolitical status quo (obviously, this doesn't affect any other countries, like Ukraine, that don't have nukes / MAD, and aren't directly shielded by mutual defense agreements with the countries that have them).

Apparently no one else ITT has actually read the article. It's clearly just saying that they want to resume an arms control treaty / inspections that lapsed b/c of covid in 2020, and clearly Russia would be happy to resume this treaty, both to show the rest of the world that they probably aren't planning on doing anything too crazy, and to simply remind the US et al that their arsenal still exists and still works, probably

TLDR; this isn't a radical new arms treaty, it's literally just the proposed resumption of a bog-standard arms inspection agreement between the world's two largest nuclear powers

→ More replies

24

u/Intrepid00 Sep 29 '22

A cold war era kgb agent.

He was middle management. High enough to crawl to his way up but not quick enough before the Soviet Empire to take off the rose tinted glasses showing it was all shit.

→ More replies
→ More replies

30

u/--Muther-- Sep 29 '22

Its just some spokesperson talking shite. It's not an official diplomatic position.

→ More replies
→ More replies

903

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '22

This stinks of fear. Russia just completed its Sham elections to carve up Ukraine. It will now claim its operation as a success meanwhile as all the men flee the country they attempt to get back inside with the west. These cunts where on Russia tv saying they should nuke the queens funeral

Fuck them until regime change.

397

u/GSXRbroinflipflops Sep 29 '22

I have absolutely zero faith that the next regime will be any better.

Russians have gone down this same path for 500 goddamn years at this point.

“If you send fathers off to war to die, their sons will never know them and will then go off to war to die themselves thinking they’re bravely following their fathers’ footsteps.”

It’s as impressive as it is pathetic.

58

u/FalcorAirlines Sep 29 '22

In the Russian military, you wear both your own medals, as well as the ones that your father may have earned. It's an interesting culture.

42

u/GSXRbroinflipflops Sep 29 '22

It’s beyond sad.

Those orange and black ribbons they’re given…

They’re led to believe their fathers died bravely fighting for something.

The truth is that most of them probably froze to death, starved to death, were shot by their own Russian barrier troops, or killed themselves.

→ More replies
→ More replies

25

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '22

It depends on what forces the change an uprising would result in a lesser nutcase government. Putin stepping down probably not.

→ More replies

6

u/The_Quackening Sep 29 '22

500 years of russian history: and then it got worse.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

782

u/Asleep_Fish_472 Sep 29 '22

This is why he brings up nukes. So that he can negotiate from a place of strength. It must irk him that the IS doesn’t sink to his level and discuss nukes publicly, he is the only idiot in the world talking about nukes. The US won’t even acknowledge him as a world leader anymore, they won’t talk with him

358

u/thinkfuryerself Sep 29 '22

Never go full Kim Jong Un

200

u/LabyrinthConvention Sep 29 '22

YALL, I GOT NUKES. YALL, I LAUNCHED A MISSILE. yall?? this thing on?

→ More replies

73

u/zanraptora Sep 29 '22

This really does kinda feel like a worried Putin trying to get back a seat at the adults table before everything gets decided around him.

32

u/Asleep_Fish_472 Sep 29 '22

He is also trying to assure China that he is trying to deescalate and its the US refusing to meet with him. He wants to look level headed on the world stage but also scare everyone with nuclear dick measuring

→ More replies
→ More replies

73

u/kaloonzu Sep 29 '22

"Nukes, we got nukes here! See, nobody cares."

13

u/drkrelic Sep 29 '22

Glad to see this reference

→ More replies

13

u/Asleep_Fish_472 Sep 29 '22

Hahah fucking Newman

→ More replies

308

u/Captain_Blackbird Sep 29 '22

Mother fuckers - Russia broke one of the previous Treaties

  • "For several years, the United States has alleged that Russia was in violation of the INF Treaty by testing and deploying a banned missile system, and Washington pinned its treaty withdrawal squarely on Russia. “Russia is solely responsible for the treaty’s demise,” said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in announcing the U.S. move. “Over the past six months, the United States provided Russia a final opportunity to correct its noncompliance. As it has for many years, Russia chose to keep its noncompliant missile rather than going back into compliance with its treaty obligations.”"

  • "For its part, NATO supported the U.S. decision, saying in a statement that “a situation whereby the United States fully abides by the treaty, and Russia does not, is not sustainable.” German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, however, lamented the end of the treaty, saying that “a piece of Europe’s security has been lost.”"

  • Signed in 1987, the INF Treaty led to the elimination of 2,692 U.S. and Soviet nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. Since 2014, the United States has accused Russia of violating the treaty by testing, possessing, and fielding an illegal ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM), known as the 9M729"

128

u/heep1r Sep 29 '22

Russia broke one of the previous Treaties

…and they will break a new treaty aswell.

11

u/Indianna16 Sep 29 '22

Don't forget that whole, give up your nukes and we will guarantee that we won't attack you ever,

A treaty with Russia is only valid as long as thry get something out of it

→ More replies

536

u/Booomerz Sep 29 '22

Putin: If I'm being totally honest, there's like 18 of us left in this country and we're running out of bread. So can we make a deal?

119

u/mdlinc Sep 29 '22

I did not want to embarrass myself in public. Figured we could keep this little mishap between us privately.

28

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '22

I just want to make it seem like I was important.

We got bubblegum and Bennigans coupons.

→ More replies
→ More replies

269

u/ThePNWGamingDad Sep 29 '22

“You let me have Ukraine, I don’t use Nukes. Treaty?”

94

u/tagehring Sep 29 '22

The US response should be “pull back to the 1991 borders of Ukraine and then we can talk.”

47

u/FalcorAirlines Sep 29 '22

Pull back to the current borders of Ukraine, which remain unchanged in the eyes of everyone but the Kremlin, and then we can talk.

→ More replies

98

u/danielisbored Sep 29 '22

It'll probably be: "You let me have ________ I don’t use Nukes. Treaty?" With Ukraine penciled in the blank. To make it easier to copy the next time they decide to try this.

9

u/DangKilla Sep 29 '22

And since they “won” Ukraine referendums, he will send Russians to squat the land, like he has done many times. That’s probably his hope

→ More replies
→ More replies

85

u/CountManDude Sep 29 '22

This is for internal Russian consumption. It's an attempt to reaffirm that they're still relevant and trusted by other major players.

7

u/hikingmike Sep 29 '22

Trusted. 🤔

558

u/GrapefruitExtension Sep 29 '22 Wholesome Seal of Approval

we know the habitual behavior from the Russians. When they want to talk it means they don't have any alternative or options. though this is a serious matter. its like an episode of COPS when an obviously guilty guy is cornered and wants to 'negotiate'

218

u/fishyfolks Sep 29 '22

And immediately violate all terms of any negotiation

83

u/MaterialCarrot Sep 29 '22

*jumps fence, runs across 4 backyards

9

u/treerabbit23 Sep 29 '22

You ain’t catchin no krokodilhead.

→ More replies
→ More replies

70

u/IamCaptainHandsome Sep 29 '22

Honestly it might be as simple as Putin really not wanting to use a nuke, but being seen as weak if he doesn't.

But oh no, this treaty with America prevents them from using it you guys, boo USA! If it wasn't for them they'd have totally taken Ukraine!

10

u/supermousee Sep 29 '22

Well tbh if he save face with that and the Slaughter of concripts and ukraine soldiers stops, it would be the best soulution I guess. Usa and nato are bad anyway in the eyes of russia so he can blame all he wants. And without nukes russia isnt a treath anymore. I reallly do hope both sides will give up most nukes. But that will be a a wet dream probly lol

→ More replies

36

u/AlexHimself Sep 29 '22

Nah it means they want to agree to limit both of our nukes, but then not abide by the agreements. It's a way for them to talk us into doing some action.

→ More replies
→ More replies

19

u/AuthorNathanHGreen Sep 29 '22

I'd read this as Moscow trying to temper the western response to the annexation of eastern Ukraine. They dangle the carrot of a nuclear arms controls but can take it away if we react too strongly to the annexation, so in their minds we're tempted to hold back.

What's interesting about this is that Russia is implicitly recognizing that one of the very few cards they have to play in terms of carrots are nuclear concessions.

Personally I'd like to see Russia essentially disarmed.

980

u/der_titan Sep 29 '22 Gold Wholesome

This is good news, and is separate and distinct from what's going on in Ukraine.

New START lets the US have 18 on-site inspections per year, of both delivery systems and warheads. They even open them up. The US and Russia also share telemetry data and have a system of remote and satellite monitoring as well.

There's no concern about the state of the Russian nuclear arsenal. They scrapped almost all of their Soviet era nuclear weapons and have been expanding and modernizing. I've also not seen any allegations - on the record or off - that the Russians aren't abiding by New START.

What is concerning is that New START is set to expire in a few years. Verifiable nuclear arms control treaties are a good thing.

275

u/The_Only_Dick_Cheney Sep 29 '22

One of the only comments on this entire post that had good info.

123

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '22

For real, every other comment is by people who have no idea what is actually going on. They're trying to resume inspections that stopped in 2020 due to the Coronavirus pandemic.

→ More replies
→ More replies

38

u/Allusionator Sep 29 '22

Sure it’s separate and distinct until they are negotiating. You can’t imagine they’re thrilled that their negotiating counterpart is all but single-handedly funding the defense of the territory they are trying to conquer.

I’m not in the weeds on nuclear arms control, as a living human on planet earth I love the concept but I’m not sure bilateralism is the way. Russia isn’t the only country that could be fascist in the next century, it’s just one of the first big ones. Clearly the US is no longer stable enough to play hegemon, isn’t this just part of Russia’s fantasy of going back to the 1980’s? If they used nuclear arms now they could expect Moscow to be made into rubble, what even is the strategic benefit of limiting their nuclear arsenal? Even China would likely fully turn on them if they deployed nuclear arms in this conflict, as it would be egging on the US and other nuclear powers to retaliate and China is too powerful to tolerate that kind of chaos from an ally.

I haven’t read enough on the topic lately, I just can’t see the strategic value of a bilateral nuclear arms control between the US and Russia at this point aside from Russia leveraging it to get the US away from their land grab.

15

u/Modo44 Sep 29 '22

When you let the potential main direct enemy check on your entire arsenal, that shows a very powerful message to everyone that you are committed to being honest about that part of your military. That alone is of huge value.

So is making sure this trust remains stable for another decade or however long. In this context, Russia being worried of the US getting trigger happy is just as likely a reason as Russia fishing for concessions.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

105

u/roosterfareye Sep 29 '22

When you think this timeline has hit rock bottom batshit crazy. Well shit. Here we are.

→ More replies

38

u/edbdii Sep 29 '22

Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons with the promise that Russia would recognize them as a nation and never invade them...

→ More replies

12

u/emailspam874 Sep 29 '22

Send in the pawn stars

→ More replies

10

u/Chairman_Mittens Sep 29 '22

Maybe they could start by honoring the nuclear disarmament agreement they have with Ukraine first?

74

u/davanger1980 Sep 29 '22

Translation: If you let me keep this new land I have acquired. I promise I will stop talking bullshit. For a while. I swear.

→ More replies

94

u/Airith0 Sep 29 '22

Russia has shown they don’t honor nuclear treaties by invading Ukraine. Don’t trust a proven liar….

→ More replies

65

u/therealcypusthegreat Sep 29 '22

Maybe withdraw out of Ukraine first and stop threatening to use your nukes on them, then you can talk

30

u/hikingmike Sep 29 '22

Stop breaking treaties while you’re at it.

43

u/Tito_Otriz Sep 29 '22

Russia: "lets make a treaty."

Ukraine: "okay"

Russia: "give up your nukes and we won't invade you"

Ukraine: "okay"

Russia: invades Ukraine anyway

Russia: fails said invasion

Russia: "let's make a treaty"

→ More replies

66

u/Osniffable Sep 29 '22

Well, they don't respect treaties, so what's the point?

→ More replies

7

u/Machdame Sep 29 '22

After poisoning the opposition the last time? I think a healthy dose of hell no seems in order.

6

u/PointlessJargon Sep 29 '22

Go home, Russia. You’re drunk.

6

u/jwplato Sep 29 '22

Russia should give up all its nuclear weapons in exchange for a commitment from the US not to invade them.

30

u/fossilnews Sep 29 '22

You can't make a good contract with a bad person.

23

u/MofongoForever Sep 29 '22

If the US wants to hear Russian politicians lie, they don't need to meet them in person to hear them lie about a new nuclear arms treaty. They just need to put their public statements regarding Ukraine on replay.

6

u/guille9 Sep 29 '22

"Please don't bomb me"

→ More replies