Russia Threatens to Nuke Britain, France, and Germany

Chris

Administrator
Staff member
Russia Threatens to Nuke Britain, France, and Germany
A dramatic escalation.
By Robert Spencer

Russia threatened a dramatic escalation of its war in Ukraine Thursday when Russia’s Channel One featured a video depicting Russian missiles reaching Berlin, Paris, and London.

Zhuravlyov declared: “One Sarmat [missile] and that’s it – the British Isles are no more.” The show’s cohost, Evgeny Popov, responded: “No one will survive in this war when you propose the strike with a Sarmat. Do you understand that no one will survive? No one on the planet.” Zhuravlyov, however, was undeterred, saying optimistically that “we’ll start with a blank slate,” and boasting that Russian missiles “can’t be intercepted. Their abilities are limited. They say they can shoot it down, we’ll see about that.”

The show’s other host, Popov’s wife Olga Skabeyeva, then added: “Sarmats are not in Kaliningrad yet. From Kaliningrad to Berlin is 106 seconds, from Kaliningrad to Paris is 200 seconds. You’re interested in London, 202 seconds to London.” Zhuravlyov responded happily: “They need to be shown this picture. ‘Guys, look at this picture — count the seconds, can you make it? Hello, it’s already here.’ That’s the way. Let them think about it. Get a stopwatch, count [to] 220 seconds. That’s how you talk to them, they don’t understand anything else.”

This latest round of nuclear threats came after James Stephen Heappey, Britain’s Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, said that Ukraine should strike inside Russia: “It is completely legitimate for Ukraine to be targeting in Russia’s depth in order to disrupt the logistics that if they weren’t disrupted would directly contribute to death and carnage on Ukrainian soil.” He also voiced support for other countries supplying Ukraine with weaponry: “There are lots of countries around the world that operate kit that they have imported from other countries; when those bits of kit are used we tend not to blame the country that manufactured it, you blame the country that fired it.”

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wondered if NATO would consider the same actions on Russia’s part to be justified: “Do we understand correctly that for the sake of disrupting the logistics of military supplies, Russia can strike military targets on the territory of those NATO countries that supply arms to the Kyiv regime? After all, this directly leads to deaths and bloodshed on Ukrainian territory. As far as I understand, Britain is one of those countries.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry added a threat: “We would like to underline that London’s direct provocation of the Kyiv regime into such actions, if such actions are carried out, will immediately lead to our proportional response. As we have warned, the Russian armed forces are in round-the-clock readiness to launch retaliatory strikes with high-precision long-range weapons at decision-making centres in Kyiv.” On Wednesday, Putin himself directly threatened retaliation against countries that are aiding Ukraine: “We have all the tools for this, that no one else can boast of having. We won’t boast about it: we’ll use them, if needed.”

This echoed what he said when he launched the invasion on February 24: “Now a few important, very important words for those who may be tempted to intervene in the ongoing events. Whoever tries to hinder us, or threaten our country or our people, should know that Russia’s response will be immediate and will lead you to consequences that you have never faced in your history. We are ready for any turn of events. All necessary decisions in this regard have been made. I hope that I will be heard.”

He was not heard. France 24 reported on Sunday that “rather than hiding it,” the Pentagon “began openly talking this week about how it is training Ukrainian troops, including inside Germany, to use the weapons they are receiving. And instead of saying, as it did in February, that it wants only to help Ukraine survive, Washington now says its goal in the war is to debilitate Russia for the long term.” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin declared: “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”

Will this, then, become a nuclear war? We’re closer to that than we have been for nearly sixty years.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

https://www.raptureforums.com/polit...threatens-to-nuke-britain-france-and-germany/
 

daygo

Well-Known Member
Nuclear war Won't happen, tell you a story. One day a man went into his garden and saw it desolate, weeds everywhere broken down walls, was dry arid and not been tended to for years. He thought to himself I know I'll tidy everything up build a new wall, put a pond in here plant a few bushes, lay a lawn, even plant a tree for the birds. He did all this and more then stood back and was pleased with his work, still something missing, I know I'll make a model of the earth so he got started when he finished he put it in the middle of the garden, stepped back and looked at all that he'd done and was really pleased.
Later a gang of hooligans came along and their leader saw what the man had done and said let us go and destroy this beautiful garden, so they set off, but while they were far off the man saw this and said as long as I'm able these hooligans will not destroy my garden.
Question if the man is able to defend his garden will he allow these hooligans to succeed.
 

Tall Timbers

Imperfect but forgiven
I don't think there will be a global nuke war just because I believe we're living in the last days of this era and such a war could set the timeline back a hundred years or more. My thoughts aren't an indicator that it won't happen though... I do think there is a growing likelihood of nukes targeting Ukraine. The more poorly things go for Russia there, the more likely tactical nukes will be used, I think.
 

daygo

Well-Known Member
I don't think there will be a global nuke war just because I believe we're living in the last days of this era and such a war could set the timeline back a hundred years or more. My thoughts aren't an indicator that it won't happen though... I do think there is a growing likelihood of nukes targeting Ukraine. The more poorly things go for Russia there, the more likely tactical nukes will be used, I think.
Possibly t.t
 

athenasius

Well-Known Member
France 24 reported on Sunday that “rather than hiding it,” the Pentagon “began openly talking this week about how it is training Ukrainian troops, including inside Germany, to use the weapons they are receiving. And instead of saying, as it did in February, that it wants only to help Ukraine survive, Washington now says its goal in the war is to debilitate Russia for the long term.” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin declared: “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”

Will this, then, become a nuclear war? We’re closer to that than we have been for nearly sixty years.
Some thoughts comparing this against the Bible

Russia won't be debilitated for the long term. Unless we are talking another 30-60 years before the Tribulation. They have to be a formidable force, one that nobody dares oppose when Ezek 38 occurs. God will allow this, because HE and HE ALONE will take the credit for delivering Israel. If Russia was a weakened nobody, even if nobody else wanted to help Israel, this wouldn't fit the prophecy outlined in Ezek 38 of a HUGE invasion, very strong, Israel not having a hope of succeeding against them.

So Washington's goal as Lloyd Austin outlines it above "We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine." is a no go.

When it's time for Ezek 38, Russia will be much stronger, more deadly and far more efficient than they've been so far in the invasion of Ukraine.

And then the nukes. The article asks "Will this, then, become a nuclear war? We’re closer to that than we have been for nearly sixty years."

I think it's quite possible Putin will pull out the nukes for the Ukraine, but as for the rest of the world, he can't fight a war on more than one front right now and he knows it. It's going to be all he can manage if he uses nukes on Ukraine and braces for the reaction around the world.

Putin miscalculated. He was doing well destroying NATO in western Europe, and selling oil and gas to the Eurozone. But in his fears about NATO, and his desperate need to hang onto Ukraine as a buffer state to stop NATO's advances on his western borders, he decided to invade, thinking any resistance would soon evaporate.

And here we are, with Putin feeling desperate and needing to win in Ukraine, while fending off NATO that is becoming popular in Europe again for the first time since the Cold War.

If he continues to weaken as war drags on, this gets back to problem 1-- Russia isn't weak when it comes to the time of Ezek 38 whenever that is. So the closer we are, the less likely it is that Putin will be weakened by this war.

And that brings us to tactical nukes. Which would fit the scenario of a world unwilling to enrage the Russian bear over their plans of invading little Israel. A Russian force to be reckoned with, one that might pop off a nuclear weapon at any moment on anyone's home soil.

That lines up with the type of Russian bluster we see now, but backed up with the reality of being willing to follow thru. If he nukes some of the Ukrainian cities, he becomes stronger in the eyes of the world without having to engage in a full on nuclear war with stronger nations.

However if Putin waits until the Western nations ENTER Ukraine --then it IS a world war and he has to risk engaging on multiple fronts. That isn't going to happen if Russia is strong for Ezek 38 in the next 2 or more decades.

The USSR's economic collapse in the late 80s early 90s took till now to recover from. They would need no less than 2 decades, probably longer if they had a severe nuclear setback by having multiple nations attack them simultaneously from the West.

So for those reasons I don't see Russia nuking Britain, France, Germany OR the USA.

HOWEVER I do think they will use limited tactical nukes on Ukrainian soil in the near future if God doesn't stop them via the action of The Restrainer.

And that is always a possibility too. God restraining Putin from lobbing nukes at Zelensky and the power bases in Ukraine. God may or may not allow it.
 

MapleLeaf

Well-Known Member
I'm open to the possibility that we're NOT near the time. Yet I am also highly skeptical about a global nuclear war because that would definitely be the end of everything and I just don't see Biblical support for the world ending that way. Nukes could take out the world but not the heavens and they get the kibosh too. I have a hard time believing that even tactical nukes wouldn't trigger a world war. Our leaders keep throwing petulant temper tantrums so who knows?
 

Andy C

Well-Known Member
Russia won't be debilitated for the long term. Unless we are talking another 30-60 years before the Tribulation. They have to be a formidable force, one that nobody dares oppose when Ezek 38 occurs.
I have always assumed Russia would be the bulk of who surrounds Israel for the prophecy of Ezekiel, but after taking a closer look, I dont see where scripture indicates this is true. They might be the leader of the coalition but not necessarily the mightiest. Thoughts?
 

Andy C

Well-Known Member
I'm open to the possibility that we're NOT near the time. Yet I am also highly skeptical about a global nuclear war because that would definitely be the end of everything and I just don't see Biblical support for the world ending that way. Nukes could take out the world but not the heavens and they get the kibosh too. I have a hard time believing that even tactical nukes wouldn't trigger a world war. Our leaders keep throwing petulant temper tantrums so who knows?
A limited global nuke war would not be the end of life, so I agree, it wont be a huge global exchange, but more likely tactical nukes used in specifically targeted areas.
 

athenasius

Well-Known Member
I have a hard time believing that even tactical nukes wouldn't trigger a world war.
Normally yes. But God.

We have been living thru anything but normal times lately. I've watched as the economic bubble which should have burst OVER AND OVER AND OVER by all the laws and rules that govern economics. I've seen the plague attack the economy even more fiercely, yet that bubble stretches, and doesn't burst.

We've been living in the supernatural impossible can't possibly happen times just in that one instance for over a decade now.

Take the peace process and Trump's Peace Plan. I was watching it closely, and it kept almost coming out, but impossible things got in the way. A few could have been explained away, but not over and over and over. Some were beyond the ability of any human to make happen. Someone suggested once that it was the globalists stopping it. They stopped when I pointed out the litany of things that happened, most of which were way beyond humans.

I began to laugh about it all, and I kept praising God, and talking about THE RESTRAINER in action. And then I began to wonder what on earth WOULD happen when that thing saw the light of day. That was Jan 28, 2020. If you don't recall why that date was important, it was the beginning of the plague hitting the shores of North America. There were under 20 cases, and it exploded after that.

The Peace Plan was shelved for the Abraham Accords, as a choice to allow the AA to go ahead. That was momentous, but nobody much paid attention to the significance except here and other prophecy circles who noticed the similarity between Sheba and Dedan coming together and the members of the Abraham Accords.

I've been clocking events like this for quite a while now, and at one point I posted that water flows uphill nowadays. That was in 2017 I think, and I hadn't seen ANYTHING yet!

It's not normal times.

To quote the Wizard of Oz "We aren't in Kansas anymore!"

When things don't go as "normal", watch and see, because likely you are seeing God's hand restraining or the Devil's attempts to get ready.
 

athenasius

Well-Known Member
I have always assumed Russia would be the bulk of who surrounds Israel for the prophecy of Ezekiel, but after taking a closer look, I dont see where scripture indicates this is true. They might be the leader of the coalition but not necessarily the mightiest. Thoughts?
Lot's but that is a HUGE subject and I don't know how much time I still have to write tonight. I'll take a stab at it later if I may. (you did ask me to write a book right?) :lol

Meanwhile I'll point you towards Fruchtenbaum on the subject in his big book. Footsteps, pages 106-109 John Walvoord in his The Nations in Prophecy devotes an entire chapter to the subject (ch 10 if you have the book)

Other resources I might reference would be Dr Ron Rhodes book "Northern Storm Rising" Dr Mark Hitchcock's Russia Rising, Jack Kelly's 7 Things you Have to Know to Understand End Times Prophecy in Appendix 2 and there was something else of Walvoord or maybe Pentecost, that I'm forgetting the title of, and I seem to have loaned it out.
 

Andy C

Well-Known Member
Lot's but that is a HUGE subject and I don't know how much time I still have to write tonight. I'll take a stab at it later if I may. (you did ask me to write a book right?) :lol
I looked at our stats, and I have posted 3 times as many posts as you over the years. However, Im betting you have posted ten times the amount of words I have posted…...o_O:biggrin. Seriously, I dont even think I know as many letters of the alphabet as you..:biggrin

In all seriousness, I appreciate the great depth you post on any given subject, and especially as it relates to Israel.:hat
 

Andy C

Well-Known Member
Lot's but that is a HUGE subject and I don't know how much time I still have to write tonight. I'll take a stab at it later if I may. (you did ask me to write a book right?) :lol

Meanwhile I'll point you towards Fruchtenbaum on the subject in his big book. Footsteps, pages 106-109 John Walvoord in his The Nations in Prophecy devotes an entire chapter to the subject (ch 10 if you have the book)

Other resources I might reference would be Dr Ron Rhodes book "Northern Storm Rising" Dr Mark Hitchcock's Russia Rising, Jack Kelly's 7 Things you Have to Know to Understand End Times Prophecy in Appendix 2 and there was something else of Walvoord or maybe Pentecost, that I'm forgetting the title of, and I seem to have loaned it out.
I will take Arnold off my shelf tomorrow morning and read the pages you posted.
 

athenasius

Well-Known Member
Oh I forgot Andy Woods in his The Middle East Meltdown, he starts with chapter 1 identifying all the players. I'll try not to make a mega post when I do, so as not to derail this excellent thread altogether. But it's hard Andy, very very hard!
 

athenasius

Well-Known Member
Ok I stayed up late on this. apologize in advance for it being a very rough version but here you are @Andy C in answer to where do we get Russia in the text of Ezekiel 38 & 39?

The identification of Russia in Ezekiel 38 and 39.

From Dr. Ron Rhodes book Northern Storm Rising.

Chapter 7 Identifies the nations of Ezekiel 38. If anyone needs the footnotes he did a very good job of that in that book.

I’m going to quote bits and paraphrase longer bits from his book in here to get the gist of his arguments about Russia being identified in Ezekiel.

Dr Rhodes begins with the term or name Gog. The term means high, supreme, a height, or a high mountain.

The context is in reference to an individual not to a nation. Apparently this military leader will be a man of great stature who commands tremendous respect.

He is of Magog. So a great leader rises out of the land of Magog.

The identity of Magog is important. Most Bible Scholars place Magog as the former domain of the Scythian tribes. Russians descend from them as some moved north and settled above the Black Sea and northwards around the Volga river.

This is the origin of the Russians, the Ukrainians, the Stan nations and they also formed the Tatars and the Mongol hordes of Genghis Khan. The ancient name of the great wall of China was “The ramparts of Gog and Magog.”

Josephus also identifies Magog as the Scythians.

The early church father Jerome circa 400 AD stated the Jews of his day said Magog was a general term for the numerous Scythian tribes.

The geographic area of the Scythians spanned from central Asia to the Southern Territories of modern Russia.

More on that later - for now just keep it in mind that Magog equals Scythians equals Russia, Ukraine and the “Stan’s”.

Now the controversy
Starting with whether or not the Hebrew word Rosh means a prince or refers to a nation.

The NASB Bible version has it correctly according to Hebrew grammar and is faithful to the Septuagint LXX version which predates Christ so it reads as “Gog of the land of Magog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal in Ezekiel 38:2, 3, and Ezekiel 39:1

This is where the confusion in most other English Bible versions comes from.

Rosh is a place name, not an adjective like Chief Prince. But most other versions use it as an adjective describing Gog.

Its a controversy that dates back to when Jerome translated the Bible into Latin. He lived from 347-420AD so roughly 400 AD.

Rosh is a common Hebrew word which literally means head, top, summit, or chief.

The problem is the term can either be a proper noun like in a country or an adjective describing someone as a prince.

The Hebrew scholars CF Keil and Willhelm Gesenius take this as a proper noun in Ezekiel referring to a geographical place. These are THE authorities for understanding Hebrew grammar.

So the best translations that line up properly with Hebrew grammar would say “the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal”. Meaning Rosh is a geographic noun. Just like Meshech and Tubal

The origin of the translation “chief prince of Meshech and Tubal “ where Rosh is left out and is translated as Prince traces back to the Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome 347-420AD. At that point in time the knowledge of the ancient land of Rosh had all but disappeared.

Because the Hebrew word Rosh was in common use at the time as head or chief Jerome translated it that way. He admitted he did not base his decision on grammar.

He realized Hebrew grammar supported the translation as prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal rather than chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. But he was relying on a further translation of the Septuagint done by a Jew named Aquila who translated Rosh as chief Prince.

He explained that he did this because he couldn’t find the name of the Rosh people mentioned in Genesis or any other place in the scriptures or in Josephus. Because Aquila had mistranslated the Septuagint.

This became a cascade of repeated errors. Modern translations continue the error and cause a great deal of confusion.

So most English Bible translations use it improperly and ignore the geographical name Rosh while translating it as chief prince.

NASB according to Dr Rhodes is one of the few exceptions that go against tradition and translate it properly according to Hebrew grammar as a place name. My NASB reads: “Gog of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal.

The Septuagint, LXX the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that predates the time of Christ translates the Hebrew word Rosh as Ros - a name of a place not as the Greek word for prince so it supports that. That translation is not much more than three centuries removed from Ezekiel according to Dr Rhodes.

(The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew into Greek because most Jews didn’t speak Hebrew after they came back from Babylon so they needed a Bible in the common language which was Greek. )

Modern scholars such as GA Cook a Hebrew scholar and Dr. Thomas Ice conclude that the grammar supports using Rosh as a noun and actually demands that Rosh be taken as a noun.

So we are looking at a nation that is called Rosh. Actually named such in the Greek Septuagint LXX as Ros and the Hebrew Bible before it. Ignored by most English Bibles.

Dr. Ron Rhodes continues here by saying if we are correct in taking the term as a geographical place, the question becomes, where is this geographical place?

Back to the Scythians mentioned earlier

Gesenius in 1846 referred to Byzantine writers of the 10th century who referred to a nation known as Ros or Rus.

CF Keil references Arabic writers mentioning a people by that name and reckoned among the Scythian tribes.

Dr. Rhodes quotes Dr. Thomas Ice who concludes that based on the works of Gesenius, Keil and other reliable sources there is considerable historical evidence that a place known as Rosh was very familiar in the ancient world.

I’m directly quoting Dr. Rhodes here:

A people named Rosh or Rashu in the ninth through the seventh centuries BC are found in Assyrian sources that pre-date the book of Ezekiel!

The source is Clyde Billington The Rosh People in History and Prophecy part two in the Michigan theological journal fall of 92.

Rosh also appears as a place name in Egyptian inscriptions as early as 2600 BC and one inscription from 1500 BC refers to a land called Reshu that was located north of Egypt.

As a place name Rosh or an equivalent is found over 20 times in other ancient documents. The term Rosh is found three times in the Septuagint, 10 times in Sargon‘s inscriptions, once in Assurbanipal‘s cylinder, once in Sennacheribs annals and five times in Ugaritic tablets.

Dr Rhodes doesn’t mention it but Herodotus does refer to them as well, before the time of Christ so there actually is a lot of historical support for a people group named Rosh, Ros, Rus, or Reshtu by various sources that live north of the Black Sea and near a river that we now call the Volga.

Finishing with Ezekiel 39 verse 2 Rosh is in the remotest or uttermost parts of the north.

The term north has to be understood in relation to Israel.

Dr. Rhodes quotes the book that I told you about The Nations in Prophecy by Dr. John Walvoord. “If one takes any map of the world and draws a line north of the land of Israel he will inevitably come to the nation Russia. As soon as the line is drawn to the far north beyond Asia minor in the Black Sea it is Russia and it continues to be Russia for hundreds of miles all the way up to the Arctic Circle.”

While some may think that Turkey might fit that description it doesn’t. Because the Bible includes the qualification term “remotest” or in some versions “uttermost” parts of the north it means as far north as possible.

Because the Septuagint version of Ezekiel which predates Christ refers to Rosh, Meshach, and Tubal —we are looking at a country named Rosh by Ezekiel.
Hebrew grammar supports that.

It is only later errors that substituted the term Chief Prince of Meshech and Tubal.

If we are looking for a nation named Rosh that is connected to Magog we are looking directly at Russia.

If we are looking at Ezekiel 39:2 and we take it seriously - we are looking at the uttermost parts of the north. The word uttermost taken with the direction North means as far north of Israel as we can go. That means Russia

Hope that’s helpful

I know I should edit it a LOT more for clarity - I get repetitive when I am tired, but I need to get to bed.
 
Top