Retour à l'index du forum
Ouvrir dans le fil de discussion

RT: Zelensky admet que Putin ne bluffe pas...

par Jeromec, lundi 26 septembre 2022, 10:09 (il y a 68 jours) @ corbeau

Le gouvernement du Canada semble s'en sacrer des conséquences, il continue de livrer des armes et de l'équipement militaire à l'Ukraine...

Zelensky admits he doesn’t think Putin is bluffing
The Ukrainian president backs the view of EU leaders
Zelensky admits he doesn’t think Putin is bluffing
FILE PHOTO: Ukraine's President Vladimir Zelensky and German Chancellor Angela Merkel listen to Russia's President Vladimir Putin as they attend a press conference after a summit on Ukraine at the Elysee Palace, in Paris, on December 9, 2019. © AFP / CHARLES PLATIAU; POOL
Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky told CBS News on Sunday that he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin could use nuclear weapons.

The latter has warned that Russia would use “all the means available to us” to defend its territory.

“Look, maybe yesterday it was a bluff,” Zelensky told CBS host Margaret Brennan. “Now, it could be a reality.”

Putin himself said on Wednesday that he was “not bluffing” when he warned that Russia would consider defending its land with “various weapons of destruction.” That land could soon include the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, as well as the regions of Zaporozhye and Kherson, where referendums are currently being held on joining the Russian Federation.

Western leaders are taking Putin at his word. "When people say it is not a bluff, you have to take them seriously," the EU’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, said on Saturday. US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan told CBS earlier on Sunday that Washington has told Moscow that “any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia.”'

US threatens Russia with ‘catastrophic consequences’
Read more US threatens Russia with ‘catastrophic consequences’
Zelensky also told Brennan that Ukraine considers the Russian occupation of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant “nuclear blackmail,” despite Ukrainian forces repeatedly shelling the facility in recent months. Ukrainian forces bombed the plant again last week in an attempt to “create the threat of a man-made disaster,” Russia’s Defense Ministry said.

Despite Russia’s recent mobilization of 300,000 more troops and the likelihood of four new territories falling under Russia’s nuclear protection in the near future, Zelensky insisted that Putin “knows that he’s losing the war.” Nevertheless, the Ukrainian president told CBS that his government needs billions more dollars, more weapons, and more sanctions on Russia to continue the fight.

“We need to keep putting pressure on him and not allow him to continue,” he said, referring to Putin.'

Le Canada augmente ses capacités pour livrer des armes à l’Ukraine
La ministre de la Défense, Anita Anand.
La ministre de la Défense nationale, Anita Anand, a annoncé que le Canada va déployer un troisième avion CC-130 et 55 membres des forces canadiennes supplémentaires pour acheminer de l'aide militaire à l'Ukraine.

Afficher les commentaires
Publié hier à 8 h 37
La ministre de la Défense nationale, Anita Anand, a annoncé que le Canada va déployer un troisième avion et du personnel supplémentaire des Forces armées canadiennes dans un centre d’approvisionnement de Prestwick, en Écosse, afin d’acheminer plus facilement des armes et du matériel militaire en Ukraine et dans des pays d’Europe de l’Est.

Nous accroissons nos moyens d’aider l’Ukraine, explique Mme Anand dans une entrevue avec Rosemary Barton de CBC diffusée dimanche matin.

Le centre d’approvisionnement de Prestwick en Écosse a déjà permis d’acheminer près de 6 millions de dollars de matériel en Ukraine depuis le mois de mars. L’ajout d’un troisième avion CC-130 et de 55 membres des Forces armées canadiennes va permettre au Canada de faire un effort supplémentaire.

CBC News a rapporté plus tôt cette semaine que l’Ukraine a demandé au gouvernement canadien des véhicules blindés, des obusiers et des tenues hivernales.

Le Canada a déjà promis d’acheminer 39 véhicules blindés pour le transport de troupes en Ukraine.

Mme Anand note toutefois que les pays membres de l’OTAN cherchent un équilibre entre les livraisons d’armes à l’Ukraine et les besoins de leurs propres forces armées, car leurs stocks nationaux sont bas. Elle va discuter de cette question avec des partenaires de l’industrie de l’armement ici au Canada.

Cette question est au centre de mes préoccupations, souligne Mme Anand.

Depuis la fin de la guerre froide, les alliés ont restructuré leurs forces armées, et ils n’ont plus les stocks qu’ils détenaient auparavant, a expliqué le professeur de sciences politiques au Collège militaire royal du Canada, Christian Leuprecht, en entrevue à CBC plus tôt cette semaine.

« La plupart de l’aide qu'on donne aujourd’hui provient des réserves. Il s’agit donc d’équipements qui vont manquer. »

— Une citation de Christian Leuprecht, professeur de sciences politiques au Collège militaire royal du Canada
Le Canada doit dire oui à l’Ukraine
Depuis février, le Canada a livré ou s’est engagé à livrer 626 millions de dollars en aide militaire à l’Ukraine. Dans une entrevue à l’émission The House diffusée à CBC Radio, l’ambassadeur du Canada aux Nations unies, Bob Rae, a rappelé que le Canada ne peut pas refuser les demandes de l’Ukraine pour lui fournir du matériel militaire.

Cela pourrait nuire à ma carrière, mais je ne crois pas que nous pourrions répondre autre chose que "oui", a estimé M. Rae.

« C’est le conseil que j’ai toujours donné. Évidemment, les gouvernements doivent décider à quel rythme ils peuvent le faire. »

— Une citation de Bob Rae, ambassadeur du Canada aux Nations unies
Les appels pour une augmentation de l’aide militaire offerte à l’Ukraine interviennent dans le contexte des contre-offensives dans l’est et le sud du pays et de l’annonce par la Russie de la mobilisation de centaines de milliers de réservistes. La Russie a également organisé des référendums dans les territoires ukrainiens qu’elle occupe.

De plus, le président russe, Vladimir Poutine, a menacé la semaine dernière d’avoir recours à des armes nucléaires. Mais selon la ministre Anand, la décision de Vladimir Poutine de brandir la menace d’une guerre nucléaire et le rappel des réservistes sont des actes de désarroi.

D’après un texte de Christian Paas-Lang, CBC

La diplomatie a peut-être encore une chance, mais avec les Libéraux, sûrement pas... le gros bon sens à sacré le camp avec l'eau du bain....:-|

26 Sep, 2022 11:43
HomeWorld News
Dmitry Trenin: Russia and the US still have time to learn the lessons of the Cuban missile crisis and prevent a nuclear war
The erosion of deterrence has left us sleepwalking into big trouble
Dmitry Trenin is a Research Professor at the Higher School of Economics and a Lead Research Fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. He is also a member of the Russian International Affairs Council.

Dmitry Trenin: Russia and the US still have time to learn the lessons of the Cuban missile crisis and prevent a nuclear war
FILE PHOTO. Delegates raise their hands during a 19-1 vote to approve Washington’s decision to take measures against Cuba during a meeting of the Organization of American States, New York, 1962. © PhotoQuest/Getty Images
This October marks the 60th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis, which drew Moscow and Washington into a nuclear showdown that threatened the immediate annihilation of the world.

Luckily, the leaders of the time – Nikita Khrushchev and John F. Kennedy – had the wisdom to step back from the brink, and then engage with each other on first steps toward jointly managing adversity in the nuclear era. Given the current conflict in Ukraine, which is steadily escalating toward a direct military collision between Russia and the United States, there is a hope that the lessons of the past can also help to end the present confrontation on a peaceful note.

However, we should also be mindful of the major differences between the two crises.

On the surface the root cause of both confrontations has been acute feelings of insecurity created by the expansion of the rival power’s political influence and military presence right to the doorstep of one’s own country: Cuba then, Ukraine now.

This similarity, however, is almost as far as it goes. The salient feature of the Ukraine crisis is the vast asymmetry not only between the relevant capabilities of Russia and the United States, but even more importantly between the stakes involved. To the Kremlin, the issue is literally existential.

Essentially, it is not only the future of Ukraine, but that of Russia itself that is on the table. To the White House, the issue is definitely important, but far less critical. What is in question is clearly US global leadership (which will not collapse within the Western world, whatever happens in Ukraine), its credibility (which can be dented but hardly destroyed), and the administration’s standing with the American people (for whom Ukraine is hardly a top concern).

Ivan Timofeev: The EU’s von der Leyen is completely wrong about anti-Russia sanctions, and here’s why
Read more Ivan Timofeev: The EU’s von der Leyen is completely wrong about anti-Russia sanctions, and here’s why
The 1962 Cuban missile crisis broke out in the atmosphere of a pervasive fear of World War III, which rose to its highest pitch during the 13 days in October. The 2022 Ukraine crisis is unfolding virtually in the absence of such fear. Russia’s actions over the past seven months have been taken in the West more as evidence of its weakness and indecision than its strength.

Moreover, the war in Ukraine is seen as an historic opportunity to defeat Russia, weakening it to a point when it can no longer pose a threat even to its smallest neighbors. A temptation emerges to finally solve the 'Russian Question', permanently neutering the country by seizing its nuclear arsenal, and possibly breaking it into many pieces that would likely bicker and war among themselves. Among other things, this would rob China of a major ally and resource base, and create favorable conditions for Washington to prevail in its conflict with Beijing, thus sealing its global dominance for many more decades.

The Western public is being prepared for the eventuality of nuclear weapons being used in the Ukraine crisis. Russian warnings to NATO countries, with reference to Moscow’s nuclear status, to stay away from direct involvement in the war, which are meant as deterrence rather than an intention to widen the conflict, are dismissed as blackmail. Indeed, a number of Western experts actually expect Russia to use its tactical nukes if its forces face a rout in Ukraine.

Rather than seeing this as a catastrophe to be absolutely averted, they seem to view this as an opportunity to hit Russia very hard, make it an international outlaw, and press the Kremlin to surrender unconditionally. At a practical level, the US nuclear posture and its modernization programs focus on lowering the atomic threshold and deploying small-yield weapons for use on the battlefield.

This does not suggest that the administration of US President Joe Biden wants a nuclear war with Russia. The problem is that its highly pro-active policy on Ukraine is based on a flawed premise that Russia can indeed accept being 'strategically defeated' and, should nuclear weapons be used, their use would be limited to Ukraine or, at worst, to Europe. Americans have a long tradition of ascribing their own strategic logic to their Russian opponents, but this can be fatally misleading. Ukraine, parts of Russia and Europe being hit by nuclear strikes – while the US emerges from the conflict unscathed – might be considered a tolerable outcome in Washington, but hardly in Moscow.

Vladimir Kornilov: Time to drop our illusions, the West is waging a war to destroy Russia
Read more Vladimir Kornilov: Time to drop our illusions, the West is waging a war to destroy Russia
So many of Russia’s so-called red lines being breached without consequence from the start of the Ukraine war have created an impression that Moscow is bluffing, so that when President Vladimir Putin recently issued another warning to Washington, saying that “it is not a bluff,” some people concluded that it was precisely that. Yet, as recent experience demonstrates, Putin’s words deserve to be taken more seriously. In a 2018 interview he said, “Why do we need a world in which there is no Russia?”

The problem is that Moscow’s strategic defeat, which the US is aiming for in Ukraine, would probably ultimately result in “a world without Russia.” This probably suggests that if – God forbid! – the Kremlin will face what the Russian military doctrine calls “a threat to the existence of the Russian Federation,” its nuclear weapons will not point to some location on the European continent, but more likely across the Atlantic.

This is a chilling thought, but it may be salutary. Any use of nuclear weapons must be prevented, not just the use of strategic ones. It is cruel but true that peace between adversaries is based not on solemn pledges and pious wishes, but, in the final count, on mutual fear. We came to call this deterrence and "mutually assured destruction." That fear should not paralyze our will, but it should ensure that neither side loses its senses. On the contrary, the erosion of deterrence and its dismissal as bluff would leave us sleepwalking into big trouble.

Unfortunately, this is precisely where we are heading now. It is telling that the constant shelling, over many weeks, of Europe’s largest nuclear power station is tolerated by Western – including, incredibly, European – public opinion, because it is Ukrainian forces seeking to dislodge the Russians who have occupied the station.

If there are lessons to be learned from the Cuban missile crisis, these are basically two. One is that testing nuclear deterrence is fraught with fatal consequences for all of humanity. The second is that the resolution of a crisis between major nuclear powers can only be based on understanding, and not either side’s victory.

There is still time and room for that, even if the former is running out and the latter is getting narrower. Right now, it is still too early even to discuss a potential settlement in Ukraine, but those Russians and Americans who like me spent the last three decades in a failed effort to help create a partnership between their two countries need to come together now to think about how to avert a fatal clash. In 1962, after all, it was informal human contact that saved the world.''

  166 vues

Fil complet:

 Fil RSS du sujet

194884 messages dans 39619 fils de discussion, 1027 utilisateurs enregistrés, 60 utilisateurs en ligne (0 enregistrés, 60 invités)
Temps actuel sur le forum : 03/12/2022, 11:30
Fil RSS des messages  Fil RSS des discussions | Contact
powered by my little forum