Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Petraeus: US would destroy Russia’s troops if Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine

edited October 2022 in Off-Topic
Former CIA director and retired army general says Moscow’s leader is ‘desperate’ and ‘battlefield reality he faces is irreversible’
The US and its allies would destroy Russia’s troops and equipment in Ukraine – as well as sink its Black sea fleet – if Russian president Vladimir Putin uses nuclear weapons in the country, former CIA director and retired four-star army general David Petraeus warned on Sunday.

Petreaus said that he had not spoken to national security adviser Jake Sullivan on the likely US response to nuclear escalation from Russia, which administration officials have said has been repeatedly communicated to Moscow.

He told ABC News: “Just to give you a hypothetical, we would respond by leading a Nato – a collective – effort that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black sea.”

The warning comes days after Putin expressed views that many have interpreted as a threat of a larger war between Russia and the west.

Asked if the use of nuclear weapons by Russia in Ukraine would bring America and Nato into the war, Petreaus said that it would not be a situation triggering the alliance’s Article 5, which calls for a collective defense. That is because Ukraine is not part of Nato – nonetheless, a “US and Nato response” would be in order, Petreaus said.

Petreaus acknowledged that the likelihood that radiation would extend to Nato countries under the Article 5 umbrella could perhaps be construed as an attack on a Nato member.

“Perhaps you can make that case,” he said. “The other case is that this is so horrific that there has to be a response – it cannot go unanswered.”

Yet, Petreaus added, “You don’t want to, again, get into a nuclear escalation here. But you have to show that this cannot be accepted in any way.”

Nonetheless, with pressure mounting on Putin after Ukrainian gains in the east of the country under last week’s annexation declaration and resistance to mobilization efforts within Russia mounting, Petreaus said Moscow’s leader was “desperate”.

“The battlefield reality he faces is, I think, irreversible,” he said. “No amount of shambolic mobilization, which is the only way to describe it; no amount of annexation; no amount of even veiled nuclear threats can actually get him out of this particular situation.

“At some point there’s going to have to be recognition of that. At some point there’s going to have to be some kind of beginning of negotiations, as [Ukrainian] President [Volodymyr] Zelenskiy has said, will be the ultimate end.”

But, Petreaus warned, “It can still get worse for Putin and for Russia. And even the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield won’t change this at all.” Still, he added, “You have to take the threat seriously.”

Senator Marco Rubio, the ranking Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee told CNN that Putin was down to two choices: established defensive lines or withdraw and lose territory.

Rubio said he believed it “quite possible” that Putin could strike distribution points where US and allied supplies are entering Ukraine, including inside Poland. The senator acknowledged the nuclear threat, but he said most worries about “a Russian attack inside Nato territory, for example, aiming at the airport in Poland or some other distribution point”.

“Nato will have to respond to it,” he said. “How it will respond, I think a lot of it will depend on the nature of the attack and the scale and scope of it.”

But as a senator privy to Pentagon briefings, Rubio resisted being drawn on whether he’d seen evidence that Russia is preparing to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine.

“Certainly, the risk is probably higher today than it was a month ago,” Rubio said, predicting that Russia would probably take an intermediate step.

“He may strike one of these logistical points. And that logistical point may not be inside … Ukraine. To me, that is the area that I focus on the most, because it has a tactical aspect to it. And I think he probably views it as less escalatory. Nato may not.”
The preceding is an unabridged current article in The Guardian.

Comments

  • yes, a response must be decisive.
  • “At some point there’s going to have to be recognition of that. At some point there’s going to have to be some kind of beginning of negotiations, as [Ukrainian] President [Volodymyr] Zelenskiy has said, will be the ultimate end.”

    Thanks @Old_Joe. Enlightening. Who knows where this all leads? Not I. But if I were in charge of the world I’d push for a negotiated settlement. I suspect some type of neutral “buffer zone” might meet the needs of both sides. Just a thought. Not perfect. But war is hell.
  • edited October 2022
    Hi @hank
    Who knows where this all leads? Not I. But if I were in charge of the world I’d push for a negotiated settlement. I suspect some type of neutral “buffer zone” might meet the needs of both sides.
    Ummm, pretty much the bully outcome. The bully takes what he/she wants and a negotiation takes place to determine how much the bully is able to "retain" that was not theirs in the first place. This is how things remain f'd up in societies, eh???

    There is never a change.

    I suspect a truly answered survey would indicate that most young children have shop lifted something in their young youth......merely to discover that they could, for a form of self discovery; their own double-dare. The overwhelming majority do not remain in this personal mode.

    It's the ones who don't stop stealing; that also become the bullies of "possession", it's mine by default of courage. They'll push until the bitter end. Action of consequence is the lasting fix.
  • That’s the response I anticipated …
  • It's very seldom that my personal feelings / instincts are validated by serious leadership of any type. But I have to tell you that General Petreaus echoed my thoughts virtually word-for-word.
  • the poot-brain bully cannot be allowed to come away with anything ukrainian. period. full stop. not the donbas, not crimea. nothing. zip. nada. crimea was an earlier test, and the eu failed. the poot-hole finally has our collective attention. sad to think also of the russian lives he's screwed-up, in addition to the mass destruction in ukraine. where will the russian refuse-niks live on a permanent basis, going forward? the other side of the refugee coin.
  • The UN should have stopped this mess 10 years ago when the locals in those border counties started throwing rocks at one another.
    I hope the CIA, the State Dept, and Tom Clancy are coming up with a secret response to Russia using tactical nukes. Have Dick Chaney invite Putin to a bird hunt.
  • "Have Dick Chaney invite Putin to a bird hunt." Good one @Rossby
  • Derf said:

    "Have Dick Chaney invite Putin to a bird hunt." Good one @Rossby

    Hee hee hee hee hee.

  • Yes indeed!
Sign In or Register to comment.