Hard to read that as anything other than a threat to use nukes. What else could he be talking about there?
It's like if I said "adam has threatened to kick me in the bollocks. Well, if he does so, he should remember I have steel toe-capped boots too!" and the press all reported that as "Normille threatens to kick adam in the bollocks".
It ignores both the fact that I actually said I'd only retaliate if adam kicked me in the bollocks first AND the fact that I didn't actually say I would kick adam in the bollocks, but just reminded him that he wasn't the only one wearing big boots.
It may sound pedantic. But reporting what you inferred from what someone said as a direct quote attributed to that person is not honest journalism.
As for reporting it as threaten to use nuclear weapon as “first strike”, I haven’t seen any news that specifically mentioned “first strike”. Care to give an example?
>Putin did threaten to use nuclear weapon when he said “we will certainly use all the means at our disposal, this is not a bluff”.
>I haven’t seen any news that specifically mentioned “first strike”. Care to give an example?
In the first quote above you're telling me Putin did threaten to use nuclear weapons, even though he didn't say those actual words
In the second quote you're asking me to prove my 'inference' by showing you where those actual words were used.
So you want it both ways? We can infer what Putin meant and report that as direct quote. But when reporting statements from 'our side' we must stick to the actual words used?
If you can't see the inconsistency there, there's no point even debating this further.