Russian Lawmaker Issues Sobering Threat: We're Willing To Use Nukes To Defend Crimea

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Mac Slavo via,

As of late, the media has forgotten about tensions between Ukraine, NATO, and Russia. Crimea and the conflict in Eastern Ukraine have largely left the public’s awareness. However, that shouldn’t be the case, because this region is still a powder keg that could blow at any time. And if it does, it could easily result in another world war.

If you don’t think the situation in Ukraine could still explode into a wider conflict, take a look at what this member of Russia’s parliament recently said at an international security conference.

“On the issue of NATO expansion on our borders, at some point I heard from the Russian military — and I think they are right — If U.S. forces, NATO forces, are, were, in the Crimea, in eastern Ukraine, Russia is undefendable militarily in case of conflict without using nuclear weapons in the early stage of the conflict,” Russian parliamentarian Vyacheslav Alekseyevich Nikonov told attendees at the GLOBSEC 2017 forum in Bratislava, Slovakia.


Russian military leaders have discussed Moscow’s willingness to use nuclear weapons in a conflict with military leaders in NATO, as part of broader and increasingly contentious conversations about the alliance’s expansion, Nikonov later told Defense One.

That’s a startling admission when you think about it. It seems the Russian’s believe that if there is a war between Russia and the West, their conventional forces won’t be capable of defending Russian soil from NATO. They’re basically warning us that “if you bring a knife to this fight, we know we can’t win, so we’ll be bringing a gun.”

And there’s a good reason for them to believe that NATO poses a dire threat to their territory and interests.

“For us, [NATO] is a military alliance spanning three-quarters of the global defense money, now planning to expand that figure,” said Nikonov.


In the two years since Russia annexed Crimea, NATO’s Baltic members have doubled their defense budgets. In 2018, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are projected to spend nearly $670 million, up from $210 million in 2014. “This growth is faster than any other region globally,” Craig Caffrey, principal analyst at IHS Jane’s, remarked last October. “In 2005, the region’s total defence budget was $930 million. By 2020, the region’s defence budget will be $2.1 billion.”


NATO has been expanding its troop presence in Eastern Europe as well. In April 2016, during the Warsaw summit, NATO agreed to increase the size of the NATO force deployed to Baltics, a posture move sometimes called enhanced forward presence. In January, the U.S. deployed some 4,000 troops to Poland. The following month, Germany, announced that it will send some 1,000 troops to  Lithuania.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has slowly but surely encircled Russia. Just last month NATO admitted another Eastern European nation into their alliance, and the current antagonism between West and Russia is being driven by NATO’s attempts to absorb Ukraine.

The West needs a reality check. The further we encroach into Russia’s traditional sphere of influence, the closer we come to World War Three. And if Russia really is such a serious threat to us, as our government has claimed many times in recent years, is expanding NATO really going to guarantee our safety?

We were perfectly capable of protecting ourselves from the much more powerful Soviet Union, and we did so with a much smaller alliance. We’re expanding NATO to Russia’s doorstep, and all we’re receiving in return is the heightened risk of nuclear war.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Duc888's picture




Mr Hankey's picture


luky luke's picture

Khazaria was comprised of Ukraine and Crimea. Khazarian Jewry wants them back.

stizazz's picture

And for that, they're not afraid to plunge us into World War 3.

Four chan's picture


Sector Catalyst's picture

Crimea is a strategic asset for the Russians with the miltiary port of Sevastopol, and this territory allows the projection of Russian naval power across the Black Sea.  If the Russians were to lose Crimea, the United Slaves of Israel would box out Russia from the Black Sea and thus access to the Meditteranean maritime route.  

Without Meditteranean access, the Russians could not execute their campaign in Syria as easily, since war and supply ships would have to circumnavigate Europe and enter the Mediterranean via Gibraltar, which takes longer, is more costly, and comes with higher risk.

So you can see why the Russians would risk nuclear war to keep Crimea at any cost in the midst of the United Slaves of Israel's "Russian isolation doctrine".

stitch-rock's picture

This is a critical big macro factor not mentioned RE:Sevastopol
The port is one of the few warm deepwater ports available to Russia

Hans-Zandvliet's picture

Actually, not "one of the few" but "the only one"

ebear's picture

On their territory, yes, but there are others. Syria, for example.

SWRichmond's picture

“On the issue of NATO expansion on our borders, at some point I heard from the Russian military — and I think they are right — If U.S. forces, NATO forces, are, were, in the Crimea, in eastern Ukraine, Russia is undefendable militarily in case of conflict without using nuclear weapons in the early stage of the conflict,” Russian parliamentarian Vyacheslav Alekseyevich Nikonov told attendees at the GLOBSEC 2017 forum in Bratislava

I told you this here at ZH three years ago.

And accessing the Med from Sevastopol requires them to transit the Dardanelles, territorial Turkey, which transit is protected by international law except in the event of war between the "owner" of the strait and the party desiring transit.  This is why Turkey's position is so...risky, and why Turkey's membership in NATO is so important to NATO.

BarkingCat's picture

You guys really should check your information or at least look at a map before putting all these opinions about Russia and their need for Crimea.

Russia most likely would defend Crimea not because they need it but because they want to deny it to NATO.

They also want it for historical reasons but they certainly do not need for the port. Look at a map of the Black Sea.

Do you see that huge shoreline on the Eastern side of it?

That belongs to Russia.

Do a little reading on a city of Novorossiyk. Russia already has a major port there and if you look on Google images, you will see naval ships there.

Russia will keep Crimea because Crimea was used by the Tatars as a homeland and a place from which to stage attacks against Russia and eastern Europe.  There are historical records of the Tatars invading Lithuania and Poland and Russia since at least 1000AD.

Russia finally defeated them in the 1700s (if memory serves me correct). They are not giving it up. (and before some SJW starts crying about the poor Tatars, they were not indigenous to Crimea).

thisandthat's picture

Great minds think alike.... pretty much said the same below.

Hans-Zandvliet's picture

Your arguments are quite right and to the point. No doubt about that.

However, I fear that, in the face of people posting silly 'questions' like "WHO THE FUCK WANTS CRIMEA?", your quite correct answers are no more usefull than casting pearls before swine (or rather, in this case, tits ;-)

Mr 9x19's picture

bam !


i would add tittytainment representation at its best seeing his avatar show an empty brain.


pointless to try to explain to such animal why russia budged over crimea.


this morron cannot place it on a map i bet.

Blankone's picture

Let us say it happens. NATO (maybe not US troops) make a move into EUke and limited nukes are used. So, where do the nuks land - in Uke. And then where is Russia in regards to trade?

Those calling the shots might be willing to sacrifice some NATO troops to justify ironclad sanctions against Russia. And to use the threat of war to clamp down at home or hide more corruption.

So here we are. I'll say again, if Russia was going to get to this point (we knew it would get there) why not draw the line Before Iraq 2? Then Russia would have an intact Iraq, Libya, Syria, Serbia and others as a powerful group of allies to dismantle the dollar as the global reserve (with help from China).

TheReplacement's picture

Russia is in a different position today than before Iraq 2.  Putin has consolidated support that he really did not have then.  The military has been greatly revamped.  The Russians, including Putin, have had nearly 20 years to see just how things work and who they can really trust.

I think Libya was the last straw.  It is clear just how desperate the empire is becoming. 

BarkingCat's picture

Russia was in no position to gelp Serbia back in the 1990s.

Yes, Libya was a mistake. 

In my opinion they made mistakes in Syria too but I suspect that they are playing a game of poker and no chess.

They probably are much weaker than everyone thinks and so they are trying to help Syria while not exposing too much information about their military strength and capabilities. 

Having said that, NATO would be making a huge mistake if they attacked Russia. 

They might lack the military capabilities right now but they have potential and history has shown that you can push them and drive into Russia only to get more and more resistance as they switch into war mode.

Once they turn the tide, it is over for the opponents. 

I Feel a little Qeasy's picture

It is really much more simple than that. The fact is, that defending youself with nukes is much more cost effective than conventional weapons. And since any attack on Russia would innevitably end in a nuclear exchange anyway, the smartest thing for the Russians to do is just to nuke the US, to end you and your terrorism of the rest of the world. You'd not be missed nor mourned. I'm fairly sure that the Russians understand that the US are simply animal filth who won't stop until they are made to, so the likeliest out come is your annihilation. Looking forward to it personnally. Cunts.

keep the bastards honest's picture

Plus it was part of the Russia and it voted to rejoin Russia.  Not all countries think like the USSA the failing empire rotten at its core. Russia and  China re close to their base level and will rise for 200 years. Russia keeps its promises.

thisandthat's picture

Russia would risk a nuclear war over Crimea because Crimea is Russia, not because of a dinky war abroad... also, Novorossiysk...


Btw, said the same as in the article multiple times - you just have to compare budgets and do the math yourselves, even considering the piss poor operationality and under staffing of most European militaries. And Russians never made a secret about that.

Mustafa Kemal's picture

Russia, it gives them a port on the black sea. From their they can pass through the bosphorus then the dardanelles to the mediteranean.

They will fight to keep it

I Feel a little Qeasy's picture

Rubbish, their attackers will die, simple as.

Giant Meteor's picture

Yes they would, but they shouldn't have to fight to keep it,  ..

Must everbody be assimilated into the borg ?


lasvegaspersona's picture

ummm....600 Light Horsemen? 1854?

Do I win anything?

Giant Meteor's picture

"The first shell burst in the air about 100 yards in front of us. The next one dropped in front of Nolan's horse and exploded on touching the ground. He uttered a wild yell as his horse turned round, and, with his arms extended, the reins dropped on the animal's neck, he trotted towards us, but in a few yards dropped dead off his horse. I do not imagine that anybody except those in the front line of the 17th Lancers (13th Light Dragoons) saw what had happened."

"We went on. When we got about two or three hundred yards the battery of the Russian Horse Artillery opened fire. I do not recollect hearing a word from anybody as we gradually broke from a trot to a canter, though the noise of the striking of men and horses by grape and round shot was deafening, while the dust and gravel struck up by the round shot that fell short was almost blinding, and irritated my horse so that I could scarcely hold him at all. But as we came nearer I could see plainly enough, especially when I was about a hundred yards from the guns. I appeared to be riding straight on to the muzzle of one of the guns, and I distinctly saw the gunner apply his fuse. I shut my eyes then, for I thought that settled the question as far as I was concerned. But the shot just missed me and struck the man on my right full in the chest"

Captain Godfrey Morgan, Light Brigade

Battle of Balaclava on 25 October 1854, 

besnook's picture

into the valley of death....

silverer's picture

Watch the six minute video. The place is not some desolate wasteland in the middle of nowhere.

Hans-Zandvliet's picture

Indeed, well worth watching. Just a tourist promotion clip, but it gives a good impression of the fact that the Crimea is not some destitute and irrelevant place. Actually (if I had the money for it) I'd fancy to spend my next holiday there!

ResistTemptation's picture

Must be a racist country ... didnt see one schnig or beana in that whole 6 min video.

Mr Hankey's picture

Yabbut, Yabbut, KATHY GRIFFIN!!!166k hits!!!900 comments!!! 

Volkodav's picture

      Still spread lies?

      Khazar is nothing to do with Scythians

      they are mortal enemies

      Genesis 10 2-5 there is Japeth family through that...

      "Red" Khazars edomite turk mongol mix descendants of Japeth    

      with later infiltration marriage/breeding into European for advantage, often Royal families, any powerful and wealthy

      Whille Scythians proved by extensive documented "Scythian Burials"

      are fair European type, with firm history links to later Europe

      Scythians first appeared history exactly few years later in same

      regions where Israel Ten Tribes became "lost" after escaped Assyrian

      captivity. Exactly there in twenty year period Ten Tribes misplaced to world

      as per Scripture and next appear as Scythian, Cimmerrian and related tribes.

      Next mostly moved gradual west in waves, but all directions also

      Russians histories extensive volumes study Scythian roots.

      Archived history so extensive while very few in west know anything of..

      You know nothing about this subject





Bill of Rights's picture

Looks like someone didn't swallow the nightly meds this evening ... either that or we have an escaped retard running amok at the local library...

Hans-Zandvliet's picture

Yea, you're right.

Then again, every village should save a place for, and cherish its local idiot ;-)

Bubba Rum Das's picture

"Looks like someone didn't swallow the nightly meds this evening ... either that or we have an escaped retard running amok at the local library..."

I'm sorry; but what more could you expect from someone named 'Mr. Hankey'?

MozartIII's picture

Legit threat to Russia. Not sure what the US is actually thinking or doing now. If our Gov is still run by Soro's and his Ilke, there will be a nuke war.

Sonny Brakes's picture

Who knew that it would be the Russians who would be the ones to free us from our current captors?

Hans-Zandvliet's picture

Indeed most surprising (and ironic)!

I do hope Russia will be able to do so (and President Putin will deserve all the credits), but I don't feel very reassured about it yet.

However responsible and careful President Putin responds to the US's game of chicken with WW3, it's hard to win a game of chicken with a 'madman'.

Ghordius's picture

I don't know who you are and who your "captors" are supposed to be, but it looks like your comment resonates, and it's very difficult for me to understand why

first, let me state that of course Russia would defend Crimea with everything it has. nobody in Europe really believes anything different

let's have a look for a moment at this Breitbart article:

lots of rubbish about "anti-americanism", which exists, but is portrayed in a completely whacked way

then, the nuggets:

this guy, Frank Gaffney, states: "It’s time we had a serious conversation about it,” he told Kassam, praising the work of Brexit leaders for helping to “bring Britain back into the Anglosphere and pull it away from what has increasingly become a hostile European Union, at least the ‘Old European’ part of it.” 

Gaffney judged this movement back toward an Anglosphere as “one of the really important tectonic shifts taking place at the moment.” "

of course here I have to think about Rupert Murdoch, and his continuous quest of shaping an Anglosphere Empire reminiscent of the Imperial Federation envisioned by Rhodes

then, Gaffney goes further: "I think the president had it right. It was not well received, but in a way, that’s because he’s finally laid bare what is really quite a considerable degree of hostility towards the United States under any president, not just this one, coming from the capitals of, certainly, Germany and France, and to some extent others in primarily Old Europe,” Gaffney said, invoking former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s distinction between westernOld Europe” and the eastern nations of “New Europe.”

“New Europe, as Donald Rumsfeld pointed out, is generally much more clear in understanding the nature of the challenges they are facing, particularly from a revanchist Russia, and much more intent on maintaining and strengthening their ties to the United States. I think we need to be working more with them. If that’s at the expense of this so-called European Union, all the better,” said Gaffney. "

here you have it. a simple strategy

Poke the Bear with the New Europeans, screw the Old Europeans because they are too cozy with the Bear

Europe, the EU and NATO? nope, not for Gaffney, that's too nice to the Bear. instead:

- split the UK from the EU, bring back the UK into the Anglosphere

- split the New Europeans from the EU and NATO, make them US Allies against Russia

- damn the Old Europeans for being too cozy with the Bear, for being critical of Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush and other warmongers, for being impertinent with many other things, try to do that "at the expenses" of NATO and EU

Is that what you guys really want?

to pit New Europeans against Russians, which are Europeans, too? to pit New against Old Europeans, which are White, Christian and brothers?

for what? a War Against Islam... while being allied with Saudi Arabia? or just for Eternal War, Period, Screw The Pesky Details?

stop the warmongers. stop this stupid "the EU, NATO, rah, rah, rah" and face the warmongers. imo your "captors" and the warmongers I am railing against are exactly the same group

rant end

TheReplacement's picture

Quit being such a tool.

You read our comments all the time.  You know we don't want anyone poking the bear, or any other critters, in our name.  Your strawman act is bullshit.

You even answered your own question but the bullshit clouded your vision and you could not see it.  Our captors are the very ones who are poking the bear, be it with old or new Europe.

I Feel a little Qeasy's picture

Good rant, thanks, but the simple fact is you are right, they want everyone else to fight among themselves while they stand back and watch other economies destroy themselves. They can then more easily dominate and leach and steal. They are FILTH from coast to coast.

thisandthat's picture

"stop the warmongers."


You mean, the French, Germans, British, Italians, etc. that destroyed Lybia?


Muh Poor Olde Yuropeens...

IridiumRebel's picture

The Russian bathtub. Their warm water port. They will fight until the death for it. Let's not test that.

DirtySanchez's picture

Crimea has been a Russian port since the time of Catherine the Great.

The people of the Crimea are pro Russian.

The idiots of the EU and the lunatic neocons are willing to risk world war in order to dismantle something that is natural to those personally involved.


McCain is a fucking senile war criminal, intent on killing us all. 

BLOTTO's picture

Ancient things that influenced and ruled the earth before still do today. It has not left.
Nothing new under the Sun.
They are mocking us.

gold rubeberg's picture

If the Crimeans don't have a problem with Russia, then why should NATO get involved? Let them be.

Having grown up during the Cold War era, I like the prospect of better relations between the US and Russia.

ebworthen's picture

Well, yes, because Kiev was the Capitol of Russia for a time.

Understandable they feel this way after WWII, Germany, and N.A.T.O. and U.S. broken promises.

East Indian's picture

The Russians believe that Kiev was the nucleus of Russia; or, as they say, All Russias.