Macgregor Explains Russia's Reasonable Development Of Its Nuclear Doctrine
Doug Macgregor, appearing on Judge Nap’s show this afternoon, succinctly explained the latest development of Russia’s doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons. It’s simple, straightforward, and reasonable in the circumstances. Here’s a transcript of the most relevant part, preceded by the statement of the proposed development:
Zlatti71 @Zlatti_71
 Vladimir Putin held his first public meeting of the standing conference of the Russian Security Council on nuclear deterrence.
Putin's opening remarks at the meeting of the Security Council's standing conference on nuclear deterrence:
"It has been proposed to introduce a number of clarifications in terms of defining the conditions for the use of nuclear weapons. Thus, the draft Fundamentals expands the category of states and military alliances in relation to which nuclear deterrence is carried out. The list of military threats, for the neutralization of which nuclear deterrence measures are carried out, has been supplemented. What else I would especially like to draw your attention to is that in the updated version of the document, aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear state, is proposed to be considered as their joint attack on the Russian Federation," Putin said.
- FRWL
12:23 PM · Sep 25, 2024
COL. Douglas Macgregor : Putin's Patient Plans
Judge: Putin made a fresh nuclear threat against the West on Wednesday ... indicating that any nation's conventional attack on Russia that was supported by a nuclear power would be perceived as a joint attack. What does this mean, Colonel ?
DM: I think it's very straightforward. What he's saying is that, 'If you in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, Poland, or Germany think'--or, for that matter, Finland or Sweden or Denmark--'if you think you can launch missile strikes against us from your soil--missile strikes that essentially originate with US military personnel and capabilities--and that you will emerge from this unscathed you are wrong. In other words, if you're going to host American military power on your soil, if you're going to sponsor American military capabilities, rockets, missiles, artillery, and so forth, then you will be treated as an extension of American military power. That means we will use whatever means we think are required to protect Russia.' No, I don't think we should be surprised by this. I think we would take exactly the same position if this were being done to us in Mexico and the Caribbean. In fact, I think we did in 1963. So this is predictable. I don't think it has anything to do with a new threat. I think it's simply a statement of fact
Judge: Does this mean that the east coast of the United States is threatened if American military hardware was fired from Estonia towards Moscow?
DM: Conceivably yes, and I think we have to take that into consideration. You now have large numbers of Russian submarines off the shore that have non-nuclear warheads on hypersonic missiles. Remember, if you're firing a hypersonic missile that flies at least at 5,000 miles per hour and carries a 1,700 lb warhead. When that warhead lands it has the impact of a tactical nuclear weapon. Those things are available and they're sitting on Russian submarines and they could be launched against us. Again this is the issue that needs to be taken very seriously. Right now we have too many people in Washington who are very cavalier about this whole business.
...
We we took the same position regarding Cuba. ... We simply did not want Cuba to be a platform for attack against us using Russian missiles and warheads. That's all very straightforward. There there's no mystery here.
...
Judge: Is [Putin's] famous patience wearing thin?
DM: No. I think he's simply watching us as we encroach upon Russia, step by step, and he's trying trying to signal very decisively what we can expect to happen if we continue down this road. We know now, with the Finns in particular. We've said we will potentially put forces in Finland. Now, when we say "forces" that doesn't mean thousands of US troops, but it could certainly mean missile installations and capabilities. Remember, we did this in Romania and early on we insisted that the only reason we were putting anything into Romania was to protect against or deter Iranian missile attacks. Well, the Iranians obviously have no interest in attacking Europe with any missiles, but that was the story that we stuck to.
I think [Putin is] simply saying, 'Look, we're going to take it very seriously if you do these things,' and he's telling the Finns, he's telling the Germans, the Poles, the Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, everybody: 'If you host these weapon systems on your soil you are going to be included in the target array and we could conceivably use a nuclear weapon to dispose of you if we think it's that serious. What they decide is "serious" is a matter for them. In other words, we could sit around and say, 'Well, this is not really what we meant.' It doesn't make any difference. They are interpreting us on the basis of what we've done to date and what we could do in the future. You don't plan militarily on the basis of what you think the opponent will do. You look at the opponent's potentialities and you say, 'Well, the opponent could do the following, what's the worst thing the opponent could do?' That is what you plan for. You plan for the worst thing your opponent can do, and for the Russians that means conceivably missiles targeting Russia, the Heartland, its cities, its people, its population.
...
Power has passed from the hands of Americans who were more judicious and balanced in their thinking to those who are simply willing to do whatever it is that Mr Netanyahu and his supporters want. It's a major shift in power. Right now they seem to be quite willing to do whatever the Israeli government demands. You know, this is very surprising to me because you're talking about a very small country. We're a very large country and the small country is in charge of the large country, it's almost a bystander waiting around to do whatever it's told. It's a surprising set of circumstances. It's very dangerous and I think it needs to end.
Armchair Warlord @ArmchairW
It's no mistake at all that this "clarification" of what the Russians consider to be an attack on their homeland is coming out in the wake of a series of likely cross-border attacks from the Baltics and Finland.
The message is the shenanigans stop now.
When you think of all the missed opportunities to meet and discuss a new security framework with Russia for post Cold War Europe that we have intentionally thrown under the bus - well, we have only ourselves to blame. It’s the Russians, as Macgregor states, who are the rational, and even patient, actors here. We are dangerous fools, outed by a superior military power. I hope, as many readers do, that some form of reason, insight, realism and intelligence takes up residence in the Oval and we no longer have to witness the current occupant’s ongoing loss of basic faculties and worse, the hollowed out and meaningless drivel.