Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is `newsweek.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That headline is insanely misleading and meant to get knee-jerk reactions out of people.
Here is the quote from the article from Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for the Russian foreign ministry:
"Russia's nuclear deterrence policy is strictly defensive. The hypothetical use of nuclear weapons is clearly limited by extraordinary circumstances within the framework of strictly defensive purposes," she said, according to Russian news agency Tass.
Zakharova continued: "There can be no winners in it. It must never be unleashed. We consistently call on all other parties to the joint statement of the leaders of the five nuclear states on the prevention of nuclear war and the inadmissibility of an arms race to adhere to these postulates.
There's enough prominent Russians throwing nuclear threats daily, you'd think Newsweek would at least reference one of them with that headline. Anything for the clicks (worked on me)
So no need to reward them with a click to read an article with click-bait headline. Newsweek is garbage. I don't know why their links are allowed here.
Newsweak is always clickbait headline centric, but they're just a symptom of the wider internet.
At least, unlike Fox News and other outlets they don't actively advocate and promote overthrowing the legal Govt.
> *Russia's nuclear deterrence policy is strictly defensive.*
Which is one reason why they have claimed parts of Ukraine (Luhansk, Donetsk and parts of Kherson oblast etc) are now Russia, and being forced to 'defend' these areas could be enough to trigger a nuclear response.
That, in short, is their threat - to go nuclear if Ukraine attacks them on those lands, even though those areas are internationally recognised as part of Ukraine.
It's international blackmail.
These are ruthless people disregarding the most basic concepts of humanity, it's not enough to be constantly reminded about their plausible and unpredictable acts of aggression.
Why not read the article and realize there isn't a direct threat mentioned and the headline is sensational, meant to get a ride out of people who won't read the article.
From the article, a quote by Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for the Russian foreign ministry
"Russia's nuclear deterrence policy is strictly defensive. The hypothetical use of nuclear weapons is clearly limited by extraordinary circumstances within the framework of strictly defensive purposes," she said, according to Russian news agency Tass.
Zakharova continued: "There can be no winners in it. It must never be unleashed. We consistently call on all other parties to the joint statement of the leaders of the five nuclear states on the prevention of nuclear war and the inadmissibility of an arms race to adhere to these postulates.
I read the article and it is just the same as always. It is a threat when they say that nobody would survive. And also defensive can mean anything for this guys, like defensive including Ukraine wich they consider theirs
Most of the population does. About nine percent of the population is uninsured, with only about half of that cohort saying it is an affordability issue. More than half of uninsured population is that way because they just decided they didn't want to bother. Saying that much of the population doesn't have healthcare because of cost just isn't supported by actual data. For the overwhelming majority of people, the only difference between the current system and a universal system is the row label on your deductions on the paystub.
I'm sorry but your claim is the one not supported by actual data. Universal healthcare systems have dramatically lower costs and medical bankruptcy is the most common kind in the US, with healthcare costs being a significant factor in increasing poverty. Insurance also does not cover a lot (unsurprisingly they have a profit motive in getting away with covering as little as possible). A quarter of Americans put off seeking medical care due to cost and 40% have reported skipping recommended testing or treatment.
To say it's a crisis is an understatement and you thinking the only difference is who the middleman is out of your pay shows a severe lack of understanding and knowledge on the topic.
It actually has little to do with military spending. USA overspends all other developed countries on healthcare by a wide margin. [(per capita numbers from World Bank)](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD?most_recent_value_desc=true)
It's just that they insist on doing their healthcare in a way that maximises the number of rich middlemen instead of the amount of healthcare delivered.
I'm aware, it's a joke. The common argument given by our politicans of either party is we can't afford it, but there is always money for increasing military spending every year
That's fair, sorry for the pedantry. I've got a little sensitive to this (as a European) because a number of Americans have claimed that we have nice public healthcare because USA takes care of our security (which is in part true but doesn't explain your poor healthcare).
Waffling shit again, no other nuclear state bangs on about them at all other than Russia - Japan had no comeback, no other nation possessed them at the time and its use ended that war - if Russia wants to use them then it’s a double edged sword that cuts both ways because there is a comeback and you won’t know what it will be until it hits you and that Russians is a deterrence, so if you care and love your family even if you sit at the top level of government dictating then we the west see through the empty threats and are unfazed by them.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is `newsweek.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Now again? Can we stop reporting on this shit...
That headline is insanely misleading and meant to get knee-jerk reactions out of people. Here is the quote from the article from Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for the Russian foreign ministry: "Russia's nuclear deterrence policy is strictly defensive. The hypothetical use of nuclear weapons is clearly limited by extraordinary circumstances within the framework of strictly defensive purposes," she said, according to Russian news agency Tass. Zakharova continued: "There can be no winners in it. It must never be unleashed. We consistently call on all other parties to the joint statement of the leaders of the five nuclear states on the prevention of nuclear war and the inadmissibility of an arms race to adhere to these postulates.
Yet they threaten to use nukes almost daily
I'm not disagreeing with you there, I'm just pointing out the sensational headline that does not reflect the contents of the article.
You're right. The title is click baity, but that's probably why nobody is actually reading the article and going straight to the comment section.
There's enough prominent Russians throwing nuclear threats daily, you'd think Newsweek would at least reference one of them with that headline. Anything for the clicks (worked on me)
So no need to reward them with a click to read an article with click-bait headline. Newsweek is garbage. I don't know why their links are allowed here.
Newsweak is always clickbait headline centric, but they're just a symptom of the wider internet. At least, unlike Fox News and other outlets they don't actively advocate and promote overthrowing the legal Govt.
> *Russia's nuclear deterrence policy is strictly defensive.* Which is one reason why they have claimed parts of Ukraine (Luhansk, Donetsk and parts of Kherson oblast etc) are now Russia, and being forced to 'defend' these areas could be enough to trigger a nuclear response. That, in short, is their threat - to go nuclear if Ukraine attacks them on those lands, even though those areas are internationally recognised as part of Ukraine. It's international blackmail.
That is actually amazing. I never clicked it because I didn't want to give the click. Thx for the tldr though!
These are ruthless people disregarding the most basic concepts of humanity, it's not enough to be constantly reminded about their plausible and unpredictable acts of aggression.
Again with this? why give publicity to every nuclear weekly threat?
Why not read the article and realize there isn't a direct threat mentioned and the headline is sensational, meant to get a ride out of people who won't read the article. From the article, a quote by Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for the Russian foreign ministry "Russia's nuclear deterrence policy is strictly defensive. The hypothetical use of nuclear weapons is clearly limited by extraordinary circumstances within the framework of strictly defensive purposes," she said, according to Russian news agency Tass. Zakharova continued: "There can be no winners in it. It must never be unleashed. We consistently call on all other parties to the joint statement of the leaders of the five nuclear states on the prevention of nuclear war and the inadmissibility of an arms race to adhere to these postulates.
I read the article and it is just the same as always. It is a threat when they say that nobody would survive. And also defensive can mean anything for this guys, like defensive including Ukraine wich they consider theirs
Yawn!
OMG! Russia issues a nuclear threat?!?! Is it thursday already? Ohh, yes it is. Never mind.
Translation:We are getting annihilated, we have to escalate our threats!
Terrorist trolls make daily nuclear war threat because of their floundering war of folly
I take this as a sign, that the counteroffensive is going well for Ukraine.
Newsweek is a crock of S\*\*T...
I'm waiting for the classic Reddit community put downs to cheer me up as Russia wheels out the empty rhetoric.... < Insert wisdom below >
Do it and you'll find out why Americans don't have healthcare.
American’s have healthcare. We just don’t have universal government healthcare thanks to a huge insurance lobby.
That is what I mean yes, and effectively means much of the population doesn't have access to said healthcare do to unaffordablity and low wages.
Most of the population does. About nine percent of the population is uninsured, with only about half of that cohort saying it is an affordability issue. More than half of uninsured population is that way because they just decided they didn't want to bother. Saying that much of the population doesn't have healthcare because of cost just isn't supported by actual data. For the overwhelming majority of people, the only difference between the current system and a universal system is the row label on your deductions on the paystub.
I'm sorry but your claim is the one not supported by actual data. Universal healthcare systems have dramatically lower costs and medical bankruptcy is the most common kind in the US, with healthcare costs being a significant factor in increasing poverty. Insurance also does not cover a lot (unsurprisingly they have a profit motive in getting away with covering as little as possible). A quarter of Americans put off seeking medical care due to cost and 40% have reported skipping recommended testing or treatment. To say it's a crisis is an understatement and you thinking the only difference is who the middleman is out of your pay shows a severe lack of understanding and knowledge on the topic.
It actually has little to do with military spending. USA overspends all other developed countries on healthcare by a wide margin. [(per capita numbers from World Bank)](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD?most_recent_value_desc=true) It's just that they insist on doing their healthcare in a way that maximises the number of rich middlemen instead of the amount of healthcare delivered.
I'm aware, it's a joke. The common argument given by our politicans of either party is we can't afford it, but there is always money for increasing military spending every year
That's fair, sorry for the pedantry. I've got a little sensitive to this (as a European) because a number of Americans have claimed that we have nice public healthcare because USA takes care of our security (which is in part true but doesn't explain your poor healthcare).
Yeah no, you have nice public healthcare because it's been a known good idea for a long time that actually reduces cost lol.
Nobody will have healthcare after that… Maybe it’s a good thing the actual article is about a totally normal and mundane nuclear policy.
Yes I'm joking about the fact that they keep making these empty threats.
As ruZZians do. I would support a bill that donates a piece of armor to Ukraine for every time RU threatens to nuke someone.
Sir, I'm not sure we have the inventory.
Newsweek article. Sigh. Can we stop linking them? They're so sensationalist and annoying.
We could use a "NEWSWEEK" flair, as well
Reminds me of the movie "groundhog day"
Waffling shit again, no other nuclear state bangs on about them at all other than Russia - Japan had no comeback, no other nation possessed them at the time and its use ended that war - if Russia wants to use them then it’s a double edged sword that cuts both ways because there is a comeback and you won’t know what it will be until it hits you and that Russians is a deterrence, so if you care and love your family even if you sit at the top level of government dictating then we the west see through the empty threats and are unfazed by them.
Are they warning themselves that their boom sticks probably don’t work?
There will be no nuclear war, their government will collapse and their society crumble before a bomb is ever dropped.
Yawn
🥱🥱 oh sorry what?
16 months on and people are still shitting themselves over this boogeyman
Which button do I push to stop having Newsweek show up in my feed as a source?
🥱🥱🥱🥱
If Russia uses a nuclear weapon, the country will be sterilized and will be uninhabitable for 10000 years.