The move comes after an acrimonious exchange with senior Western officials, labelled by Moscow as ‘provocative threats’.
Moscow plans to hold a military exercise simulating the use of tactical nuclear weapons, the Defense Ministry announced, just days after the Kremlin reacted angrily to comments by senior Western officials about the war in Ukraine.
The drills are in response to “provocative statements and threats of certain Western officials regarding the Russian Federation,” the Defence Ministry said in a statement Monday.
The exercise is intended to “increase the readiness of non-strategic nuclear forces to fulfil combat tasks” and will be held on President Vladimir Putin’s orders, according to the statement. The manoeuvres plan to involve missile units of the Southern Military District along with Russia’s air force and navy.
Ehhh, I dunno. Russia was a major power prior to the nuclear era too.
Like hell it was. It was a provincial backwater without culture or industry. The revolution didn’t succeed because the country was well managed or capable. It was because it was rotting from within and couldn’t even hold the Eastern Front with massive strategic advantages.
Okay, so, there’s a bunch of stuff there.
First, I’d point out that a country can be a major power regardless of culture or the like, and we were talking about its military capability.
Even before we get into specifics here, I don’t think that it’s terribly controversial to say that Imperial Russia was considered to be a major power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_power
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medieval_great_powers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_great_powers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower
The first Soviet nuclear test was in 1949. That stuff is all prior to that.
Was Russia relatively-economically-undeveloped compared to the other major powers in, say, the 19th century? Sure, I think that that’s fair to say. The primary sector played a major role. But…that doesn’t make a country or empire not a military power other then the extent to which it inhibits military capability. First, industrialization is a relatively-modern phenomenon; the Industrial Revolution only happened a couple of centuries ago. Prior to that, nobody had undergone that transition. But there were certainly powerful entities prior to that. And second, a lot of major powers, even if they had a fair bit of industrial capacity, also had a lot of areas that weren’t all that developed. Like, okay, take the Brits. Parts of the UK were at the forefront of industrialization, were where the Industrial Revolution started. But…the UK also isn’t the whole British Empire. The British Raj in what is now India wasn’t terribly-industrialized either.
The communist revolution in Russia? I don’t disagree – I think it’d be fair to say that the revolution succeeded in significant part because people were unhappy with how the country was being managed.
But I don’t think that one can say “The Russian Empire was pretty crippled during the Russian Civil War, ergo the Russian Empire never had influence on the region or world”.
Saying that a political entity is a major power doesn’t entail that it be an ideal country. It just means that it has significant influence around the world. It means that other countries need to care significantly about whether that country might intervene in a given situation.