https://yle.fi/news/3-12335297 ("FM Haavisto: Russia could be ready to use nuclear weapons")

“No matter who tries to stand in our way or all the more so create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history”

Maybe another Stanislav would polonium is tee a little bit....

TOS-1 or TOS-1A mentioned in the article are relative short range 3,500 m - 6,000 m. They destroy effectively areas of few hundred meters in diameter. But missiles are big and supply logistics needed is extensive.

As Ukraine is showing - they have a strong, well organized military. Beside a lack of anti-bomber missiles (Patriots) - they have everything they need to defend themselves.

They now have full support from almost the entire advanced world beside China and India. And it looks like they'll be getting some Patriot missiles within 24 hours.

Russia doesn't even have partial support from anyone. The best they can get is China and India trying to stay neutral - and it looks like China is starting to side with the rest of the world, with reports it has blocked all banks from lending money to Russia.

"Germany to send Ukraine surface-to-air missiles and anti-tank weapons" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30480526

"Why didn't the U.S. and allies provide Ukraine with a better air defense system?"

We didn't want to provoke Putin," said an official.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/didnt-us-...

Example: stingers have 95% accuracy on jets - cost ~$20k. Jets cost $40m+.

Tank cost $5m+. Javelins cost ~$180k.

Patriot missiles cost $1m. Bombers can cost $500m+

After acquiring a modern SAM capability like the Patriot, they could sure use some modern main battle tanks.

https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/south-asia/pakistan-mosco...

leaving a buffer state in a mess is a good situation for him.