Bill Burns says sudden breakthrough of troops in the north east of the country stoked fears Putin would use the most extreme measures
There was a “genuine risk” Russia would have used tactical nuclear weapons in the early months of the Ukraine war, the head of the CIA has revealed. Bill Burns said the sudden breakthrough of troops in the north east of the country stoked fears Putin would use the most extreme measures, causing a flurry of diplomatic activity. Speaking alongside the head of Britain’s foreign intelligence agency, MI6, for the first time, Mr Burns said: “There was a moment in the fall of 2022 when I think there was a genuine risk of a potential use of tactical nuclear weapons.
“The president sent me to talk to our Russian counterpart, Sergei Naryshkin, at the end of 2022 to make very clear what the consequences of that kind of escalation would be, and we’ve continued to be very direct about that. “I don’t think we can afford to be intimidated by that sabre rattling or bullying [but] we’ve got to be mindful of it.” Mr Burns had raced to Ankara, Turkey, in November 2022 to confront Mr Naryshkin in what was thought to be the first in-person meeting between senior officials of the two countries since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
In a statement issued at the time, the White House said: “He is conveying a message on the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons by Russia, and the risks of escalation to strategic stability.” In October 2022, fears were sparked of a potential Russian false-flag attack after defence minister Sergei Shoigu claimed that Ukraine was going to use a radioactive “dirty bomb”. Russian state media claimed Kyiv was gathering nuclear material to use on the battlefield in a dirty bomb or “low-yield nuclear weapon”
The claims were immediately dismissed by the UK while Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky said it was clear that Russia was itself planning a dirty bomb attack.
Putin had previously used false accusations to justify his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. On Saturday, Sir Richard Moore, the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, better known as MI6, said: “There’s only one party talking about nuclear escalation and that’s Putin.
“It’s deeply irresponsible [but] nobody in the West is going to be intimidated by such thoughts or any other behaviour by the Russian state”.
As soon as Russia (hopefully) loses their Ukrainian conquest, there needs to be a converted effort to disarm their nuclear arsenal.
Russians can’t be trusted with that kind of (fire)power, or even any power over other nations at all.
Let’s hope they balkanize and don’t bother the rest of the world anymore soon.
>“It’s deeply irresponsible [but] nobody in the West is going to be intimidated by such thoughts or any other behaviour by the Russian state”.
Lol, the US let Russia rebase and save their air fleet and now telling stories how they are not afraid of anything.
“West is not going to be intimidated”, they say, while twisting Ukraine’s arms at the same time.
A part of me doesn’t believe that.
A genuine risk? No. A genuine fear – sure, there was
Western countries are trying to sell the idea that we must accept Ukraine giving up some of its land for peace to avoid a nuclear war. Even if Russia uses a nuclear weapon, they won’t achieve anything. It will make it harder for China to continue supporting Russia, and non-nuclear countries will seek to develop their own nuclear weapons, which will be an even worse outcome for today’s nuclear powers.
I don’t think Ukraine will surrender if Russia uses a nuclear weapon. If they use it against Lviv or Kyiv, it will be obvious that not only NATO but also China must act to stop the madman. It would bring Putin down faster than any other action.
I’m not sure why the USA is so focused on protecting Russia.
As soon as Russia launches a single nuke, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will start a nuclear program. I’m sure China will be delighted
This makes zero sense. Why would Russia use nuclear weapons at the time when they thought they’ll win quickly and easily? It would gain them nothing.
Ruzzia must be destroyed. There is no such thing as NucLeAr sTaTe and thus appease them selling them Heroic Ukraine and the Baltics to avoid a confrontation
If I got it right, they are talking about dirty bombs here, but I think I remember a piece by Markus Reisner of the Austrian forces (it’s available on YouTube) in which the possibility of tactical strikes was discussed as well. Scary stuff.
The difference, in my understanding, is that a tactical strike would mean a nuclear warhead that’s used on troops, while strategic warheads are the kind that are the kind that are usually depicted – aimed at civilian and military infrastructure. Even a tactical strike could be larger than the Hiroshima bombings, though.
But a dirty bomb is a regular explosive that’s used to spread radioactive material in an area.
CIA is fearmongering 💀
There was no genuine risk, I don’t believe that. It was just an empty threat from Russians to create “red lines” and block aid for Ukraine, which worked just fine and still works because Western leaders are being cowards.
What would be very amusing for me is that the Russian nuclear warheads turned out to have mostly a lead payload, because everyone in places of power, including Putin, wanted they cut if the funds and in the end there was no money left for the uranium
Yes, CIA is trust worthy all of a sudden
The logical time to use a nuke was at the start.
Perhaps after the march on Kyiv failed.
If you were of a mind to use nukes in Ukraine it would have been well before taking 500k casualties.
Pretty much proves Russia’s threshold is far higher. 1941 style invasion or 1980s style massive nuclear attack.
Ukraine has occupied 1200km of Russian territory for a month and not a nuclear peep.
To think of the hesitancy sending MiGs in 2022 over nuclear bogeyman paranoia..
Putin is not an idiot, but he IS a cruel and cunning politician. As such, it’s important for him how history will remember him. And for that, Russians have a very simple criteria: Did he expand Moscow’s power or did he see it diminished?
Now let’s assume the worst, a nuclear war. There is absolutely no scenario in which Moscow would survive this, let alone expand its power. The NATO nukes are a lot closer to their targets than the Russian ones, NATO has more of them, and quite frankly Russian weaponry has proved to be somewhat unreliable in the last 2 years. Best case scenario for Kremlin is the complete destruction of both sides, best case scenario for the USA is no destruction at all. Either way, history would remember Putin as man who started a war that he couldn’t win – or as a man who killed billions for his ambition and then failed.
I’m in Europe, I’d definitely die in a conflict like that. But I trust 110% that Putin and his Kremlin knobs know exactly how politics work.
Hell, I believe we should aggressively start supporting freedom fighters in Chechnnya, Tatarstan, everywhere, until the Kremlin is dismantled.
But but but reddit told me Russia would not dare do it.
CIA forgot to mention IF these rockets still can jump out of their silos. Quite possible part of them has been sold or stolen, because it’s ruzzia and everyone wants to eat, especially in these circumstances.
Are you sure this is truth? No way man….i thought that Russia will not use them in Ukraine, just because USA said so. Wow…we are so naive about crazy and lunatic Putin.
Sure… As Santa is real. Let them launch them already. I won’t have to go to work anymore
If a European war does go nuclear, it should remain just a European war.
We are so lucky to have as great a leaders as we do. And the tenacity of the Ukrainians.
There are still genuine risks. It’s why we can’t hand Ukraine the entire arsenal at once. The looming risk of nuclear retaliation is one of the most important factors in this conflict.
23 comments
Bill Burns says sudden breakthrough of troops in the north east of the country stoked fears Putin would use the most extreme measures
There was a “genuine risk” Russia would have used tactical nuclear weapons in the early months of the Ukraine war, the head of the CIA has revealed.
Bill Burns said the sudden breakthrough of troops in the north east of the country stoked fears Putin would use the most extreme measures, causing a flurry of diplomatic activity.
Speaking alongside the head of Britain’s foreign intelligence agency, MI6, for the first time, Mr Burns said: “There was a moment in the fall of 2022 when I think there was a genuine risk of a potential use of tactical nuclear weapons.
“The president sent me to talk to our Russian counterpart, Sergei Naryshkin, at the end of 2022 to make very clear what the consequences of that kind of escalation would be, and we’ve continued to be very direct about that.
“I don’t think we can afford to be intimidated by that sabre rattling or bullying [but] we’ve got to be mindful of it.”
Mr Burns had raced to Ankara, Turkey, in November 2022 to confront Mr Naryshkin in what was thought to be the first in-person meeting between senior officials of the two countries since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
In a statement issued at the time, the White House said: “He is conveying a message on the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons by Russia, and the risks of escalation to strategic stability.”
In October 2022, fears were sparked of a potential Russian false-flag attack after defence minister Sergei Shoigu claimed that Ukraine was going to use a radioactive “dirty bomb”.
Russian state media claimed Kyiv was gathering nuclear material to use on the battlefield in a dirty bomb or “low-yield nuclear weapon”
The claims were immediately dismissed by the UK while Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky said it was clear that Russia was itself planning a dirty bomb attack.
Putin had previously used false accusations to justify his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
On Saturday, Sir Richard Moore, the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, better known as MI6, said: “There’s only one party talking about nuclear escalation and that’s Putin.
“It’s deeply irresponsible [but] nobody in the West is going to be intimidated by such thoughts or any other behaviour by the Russian state”.
As soon as Russia (hopefully) loses their Ukrainian conquest, there needs to be a converted effort to disarm their nuclear arsenal.
Russians can’t be trusted with that kind of (fire)power, or even any power over other nations at all.
Let’s hope they balkanize and don’t bother the rest of the world anymore soon.
>“It’s deeply irresponsible [but] nobody in the West is going to be intimidated by such thoughts or any other behaviour by the Russian state”.
Lol, the US let Russia rebase and save their air fleet and now telling stories how they are not afraid of anything.
“West is not going to be intimidated”, they say, while twisting Ukraine’s arms at the same time.
A part of me doesn’t believe that.
A genuine risk? No. A genuine fear – sure, there was
Western countries are trying to sell the idea that we must accept Ukraine giving up some of its land for peace to avoid a nuclear war. Even if Russia uses a nuclear weapon, they won’t achieve anything. It will make it harder for China to continue supporting Russia, and non-nuclear countries will seek to develop their own nuclear weapons, which will be an even worse outcome for today’s nuclear powers.
I don’t think Ukraine will surrender if Russia uses a nuclear weapon. If they use it against Lviv or Kyiv, it will be obvious that not only NATO but also China must act to stop the madman. It would bring Putin down faster than any other action.
I’m not sure why the USA is so focused on protecting Russia.
As soon as Russia launches a single nuke, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will start a nuclear program. I’m sure China will be delighted
This makes zero sense. Why would Russia use nuclear weapons at the time when they thought they’ll win quickly and easily? It would gain them nothing.
Ruzzia must be destroyed. There is no such thing as NucLeAr sTaTe and thus appease them selling them Heroic Ukraine and the Baltics to avoid a confrontation
If I got it right, they are talking about dirty bombs here, but I think I remember a piece by Markus Reisner of the Austrian forces (it’s available on YouTube) in which the possibility of tactical strikes was discussed as well. Scary stuff.
The difference, in my understanding, is that a tactical strike would mean a nuclear warhead that’s used on troops, while strategic warheads are the kind that are the kind that are usually depicted – aimed at civilian and military infrastructure. Even a tactical strike could be larger than the Hiroshima bombings, though.
But a dirty bomb is a regular explosive that’s used to spread radioactive material in an area.
CIA is fearmongering 💀
There was no genuine risk, I don’t believe that. It was just an empty threat from Russians to create “red lines” and block aid for Ukraine, which worked just fine and still works because Western leaders are being cowards.
What would be very amusing for me is that the Russian nuclear warheads turned out to have mostly a lead payload, because everyone in places of power, including Putin, wanted they cut if the funds and in the end there was no money left for the uranium
Yes, CIA is trust worthy all of a sudden
The logical time to use a nuke was at the start.
Perhaps after the march on Kyiv failed.
If you were of a mind to use nukes in Ukraine it would have been well before taking 500k casualties.
Pretty much proves Russia’s threshold is far higher. 1941 style invasion or 1980s style massive nuclear attack.
Ukraine has occupied 1200km of Russian territory for a month and not a nuclear peep.
To think of the hesitancy sending MiGs in 2022 over nuclear bogeyman paranoia..
Putin is not an idiot, but he IS a cruel and cunning politician. As such, it’s important for him how history will remember him. And for that, Russians have a very simple criteria: Did he expand Moscow’s power or did he see it diminished?
Now let’s assume the worst, a nuclear war. There is absolutely no scenario in which Moscow would survive this, let alone expand its power. The NATO nukes are a lot closer to their targets than the Russian ones, NATO has more of them, and quite frankly Russian weaponry has proved to be somewhat unreliable in the last 2 years. Best case scenario for Kremlin is the complete destruction of both sides, best case scenario for the USA is no destruction at all. Either way, history would remember Putin as man who started a war that he couldn’t win – or as a man who killed billions for his ambition and then failed.
I’m in Europe, I’d definitely die in a conflict like that. But I trust 110% that Putin and his Kremlin knobs know exactly how politics work.
Hell, I believe we should aggressively start supporting freedom fighters in Chechnnya, Tatarstan, everywhere, until the Kremlin is dismantled.
But but but reddit told me Russia would not dare do it.
CIA forgot to mention IF these rockets still can jump out of their silos. Quite possible part of them has been sold or stolen, because it’s ruzzia and everyone wants to eat, especially in these circumstances.
Are you sure this is truth? No way man….i thought that Russia will not use them in Ukraine, just because USA said so. Wow…we are so naive about crazy and lunatic Putin.
Sure… As Santa is real. Let them launch them already. I won’t have to go to work anymore
If a European war does go nuclear, it should remain just a European war.
We are so lucky to have as great a leaders as we do. And the tenacity of the Ukrainians.
There are still genuine risks. It’s why we can’t hand Ukraine the entire arsenal at once. The looming risk of nuclear retaliation is one of the most important factors in this conflict.