For the segment at 9:35: my goal for this is not to make a blanket claim that nuclear weapons have never affected any calculations at the periphery, just that the historical record is not as good as it may seem. I struggled writing that section, trying to weigh completeness versus not going down a history rabbit hole and sidetracking the main point of the video. Hope that is clear. This is not how I would go about addressing the question if this were a true research setting!
The fact is russian nuclear doctrine called for nuke strikes when russian territory is taken: and now it is PROVEN it is a bluff. That's it. The russia won't use nukes. Period. Anyone arguing otherwise it disingenuous. ALL RED LINES WERE CROSSED.
what worries me is when two super-powers have a dispute then dispatch nuclear attack subs to shadow the other guys fleet/hang out in their legal waters, all of these little power games governments play could start a nasty chain of events, and, they already have. I can't remember where it was but a NATO patrol once forced a Soviet U-boat to stay submerged for something insane like 16 hours, which lead to the Soviet navy sending reinforcements, I'm sure you can see where this was headed lol, not only do they make a lot of situations more dangerous/tense if you have border/geopolitical disputes with countries around you.
I think most people accept that Putin will have balls if he is choosing between an invasion that hits Moscow and using Nukes. His entire effort here is to reduce the risk of Moscow being invaded by NATO from the south. If he is ever facing that, he will strike first to end it.
@@unfortunately_fortunate2000*Laughs in 15min left to live before a nuke hits Colorado from a sub launching all the way from the coast* … shit scary yo
@@kuilu yes and no. Japan was already on the brink of defeat at the time of the nuclear bombings. Their Navy and Air Force were destroyed and an invasion of the Japanese mainland was imminent.
8:34 Ukraine: *invades Russia* Russia: "Ukraine, there's a 50/50 chance you're gonna kill yourself!" Ukraine: "Those are the best odds I've had in years."
It’s probably one of the stupidest military strategies. Saying “I have nukes so I’m gonna invade your country and hope you’ll be too afraid to defend yourself.”
There's a joke: Putin asks Stalin what he would do about this invasion. Stalin draws on his WW2 experience and says: "Get lots of American equipment aid and ammunition, give it to the Ukrainian soldiers as the vanguard troops and you'll be fine." Putin nods at the sage advice and then says yes that happened, but what do I do about it?
@@fireice8Only no one helped us near Moscow and we knocked it out from the Nazis, the same thing happened in Stalingrad, especially since you collaborated with the Germans at the beginning of the war and there is evidence of this.
There's also the issue that with bloodthirsty nuclear threats being made every month or so, any future warnings by Russia won't be taken as seriously as would otherwise be expected.
Which is actually kind of worse... Because now he has no choice but to prove it or stop making those claims... So before I get blown out of existence....Is a fully proportional representative democracy at the global level really too much to ask? Is nuclear war really preferable to that?? Really!? Okay I spoke my piece. Hit the button
He rattled no sabres. Western media framed it as threats. He merely said he has nuclear weapons, because a foreign power used a neighbouring country as a proxy. Don't be gullible.
“don’t use a nuke when you can solve the problem without it. you cannot un-nuke anything, and you will always have the option. when it comes to nukes, it’s never too late.”
@@jameshayes9932 That's funny.... not sure if you're keeping up with the news but Kyiv is still there. You don't think Ukraine can do the same to Moscow if they wanted? Get a clue.
If someone threatening nukes is enough to make you surrender well you already lost, if the threats are real, you already lost, if the threats aren’t real you have a chance. It’s basically impossible not to call the bluff.
@Hope_Boat Nuclear detterant is to stop other people using nukes. They suck as a last resort weapon in a war. If you use them on enemy troops as your last resort well youre nuking you own country at that point and if you nuke someone elses cities yours also get nuked. From an occupied country you can fight, seen it time and time again, from a smoking crater where your country used to be, you cant.
@Hope_Boat nuclear weapons are the "I lost, but you won't win either" option. Against a non-nuclear opponent it is a suicide bombing. You effectively say: I am irrational and a threat to everyone. IF Putler uses a nuke, his entire administration becomes a target for every three letter agency in the world and you best believe there would be economic and kinetic action taken by even allies of his to take him or his nukes out of the picture. The world knows that if you let it slide even once, everyone would make nukes because using them carries no real appropriate weight.
No, he didn't "not learn" anything. It was the US making the threats. It was the US that started this war. Putin was merely saying ""we have nukes". Putin was in his own backyard. Washington was using Ukraine for a proxy war. Everything after that is moot and inconsequential.
@@AuroraColoradoUSA There is basically no distinction between tactical and strategic weapons. A device deployed against a purely tactical target will automatically have a strategic effect, contaminating an area. Maybe using a device on the high seas might not outright trigger a strategic exchange, but you demonstrated you willingness to violate the only 'Red Line' that has NEVER been crossed since WWII.
@@AuroraColoradoUSA yes a nukes that are betwen like 5 kt to 100 kt of power in current times bombs like that are considered small the normal ones are 25 mt so scenario where russia launches 50 kt nuke at kyiv the chances are small but not zero
@@soberTrezviy it will work differently because the Ukraine war isn’t a global conflict involving every country on earth its a regional war between Ukraine and Russia etc
@@Xer405 yes, because it was unnessesary, japan army was 1-2 months to defeatentirely, no threat was there for USA. The only purpose was an act of terror to confront USSR. stop calling it ukraine conflict "regional", both military equipment and troops from all NATO countries are there and even in Kursk region. they work their asses off to provoke nukes, but they are too stupid to understand that nukes will be blown in US an UK, not UA
I think a lot of the fear was calmed by Russia itself. They’ve sabre-rattled constantly, saying “certain things might happen” if ‘x’ line was crossed; first it was political aid, then sanctions, then it was arming Ukraine, then it was sending tanks, cruise missiles, and most recently fighter aircraft. And every single time it’s come to nothing, because Nuclear Deterrents are mostly a deterrent against other major powers, not the smaller country with nothing to lose and everything to gain. I think Ukraine has (reasonably) calculated that Russia won’t fire any nukes at the front line or Russian territory, meaning it’s a purely conventional war they have to fight.
They're waiting for GSC to release Stalker 2 before launching the nukes. Russians don't care about getting conscripted and sent to the front, but stalker getting canceled would cause the second russian revolution. The ukranians know it and that's why they keep delaying it, it buys them time. The source is this roll of paper I found stuck in my crack pipe.
Russia can (and will) use nuclear bombs on its own territory if considered necessary (which it is not, the Ukrainian invasion was pretty tiny compared, say, the Wehrmact. . Russia has a long history of stuff like that, including burning Moscow to the ground to prevent the French army under Napoleon from taking the city.
What sort of twisted logic would lead you to attack someone, anyone, with the argument : "Well, after multiple warnings, he didn't press the red button and didn't send us all back to the Stone Age" ? Thats some reddit tier shitt right here :D Profile checks out too.
Putin, after more than 10 days of Kursk catastrophe, summons Stalin’s ghost: Stalin: “What’s happened?” Putin: “Nazis are at Kursk! My army is beaten! What should I do?” Stalin: “Do like me in 1943; Send best Ukrainian troops to the front, and ask the US for arms!”
@@OrcHunter-yb4ie So was the USSR a russian empire or a ukrainian one? You cant have your cake and eat it too. Either ukraine is responsible for both atrocities and fighting germany or not
Ask the US for arms, sure, because the US is never engaged in the wars in Europe directly but always incites them. And somehow ends up benefiting from them tremendously.
Russia stopped Germans at Stalingrad. But Russia was not strong enough to push Germany back over the border. Had there been no US aid to Russia, Eastern Europe and Western Russia would today be speaking German.
Equally there's the saying that Theodore Roosevelt said that everyone forgets the first part of, and makes themselves fools in the process. "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." That first part is important, because vaguely gesturing at the fact you have the big stick is infinitely more effective than shaking it so that the opponent is unsure if you even know how to hit someone with it, and yelling clearly about how you're gonna hit them with it any day now. Keep it vague, and the threat is just nebulous enough that you don't lose credibility if you don't use it, but just present enough that if an opposition was going to cave, they will.
After seeing how their vehicles had been maintained at the start of the invasion I was always thinking, no way have they maintained nukes if they cant maintain trucks. Totally agree with you.
@@igoralmeida9136 When the most Advanced Military in the World with a 1 Trillion Dollar Military Budget has Outdated Tech in its IBCM System. Imagine the ones that don't have all that Money and Technology. IMAGINE THE PAKISTANI IBCM SYSTEM
Pretty simple issue - you can't resort to nuclear weapons unless you're willing to risk upscaling your conflict 1000x. Right now Russia is embarrassed and frustrated, but under no existential threat. But suppose Russia deployed a single nuke against Kyiv - and the West responded with a single retaliatory strike of its own, say against Kalingrad. That would result in Russia going from having lost a few meaningless villages, to it losing a major city, and having gained essentially nothing for that other than some additional fallout from its strike on Kyiv - and in so doing it would have risked total nuclear Armageddon if the two sides start to escalate further. In short, Nuclear weapons aren't particularly useful as deterrents against small scale threats or incursions. We didn't throw them around in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq and so on, and this is the reason. A war has to get VERY bad before any side would realistically be willing to consider using them for real.
I don't think nuclear retaliation would be a tit for tat, I'd say it's more likely to see everything launched at once and until exhaustion to ensure the enemy is incapacitated and cannot retaliate. It is what it is.
@@salted6422Russia would never use it's full arsenal against Ukraine, because that's an incredibly stupid thing to do. I do think they have enough nukes on paper to glass the country, but if they do that, they have nothing left to defend themselves and at that point, Freedom.exe will invade them, purely for retaliation. At that point, Russia can only sit and watch. On the other hand, if they only use a few nukes against Ukraine, it most likely won't break them, just make them very, very angry and give everyone else the justification they need to send everything
Ahh but no one suspects the Russian leader who may consider it existential to himself so may think in his deluded way it’s the only way for him to stay leader
Do you know how much it cost to maintain a nuclear stockpile? Billions and billions! And it's hard. You have to have smart people. And have you noticed, Russia hasn't "tested" any nuclear weapons lately? These people didn't maintain the tires on their military vehicles. Just saying.
No one with a developed program has tested nukes in a long time. Russia also spends a lot of money on it's nuclear program, and it's a direct program under Putin's control. It's nothing like corrupt military officers not doing their job. Much like how Putin's personal guard are very well trained, and equipped soldiers.
My belief is that Russia *did* initiate a nuclear strike against Ukraine, but the missiles failed to launch, either due to lack of maintenance or somebody sold critical components.
"Damn, these soldiers cost so much. I can't afford to pay them all when they return. I better make them rush the front lines with sticks and cardboard so they don't come back." Edit: (For those who are intellectually challenged. This is obviously not a real quote. Thank you and have a good day. :D)
Thank you for expounding on some of the most important key factors based on the importance of nuclear weapons, and the strategies placed within the confinement of space, and its boundaries where it can, and can not be exhibited, due the advantages and disadvantages; especially with war. I enjoy and support your channel very much! I'd like to see more video clips like this.
I think people nowadays understand the concept of MAD far better than we used to. Given the "improvements" in both yield and delivery systems if it happens most people are dead within half an hour - and they're the lucky ones. So, perversely perhaps, there's no point not treating a nuclear threat as a bluff and among the civilian population not much point in worrying. A "baroque arsenal" indeed. Bear in mind also that higher level military personnel capable of managing such weapons have to be the most intelligent and every soldier, no matter how zealous and dutiful, gets a bit creative when given damn fool orders by a damn fool. I'm not saying it can't and won't happen, just that there isn't one finger on one button.
Nah, MAD was pretty much debunked, nuclear winter is a myth as 1000s of nukes were tested and look, it didn't happen. Anyone who claims that because nuclear missiles and bombs blown up during tests in some desert don't count is lying. They raise as much dust if not more if they were used on cities. It ONLY exists as a doctrine to justify political corruption "look we are buying oil from russia and selling them weapons components not because of kickbacks but because MUH NOOKZ".
@@dubuyajay9964 When something is portrayed as powerful, but is more of a waste of money. It has couple meanings, but baroque had this thing in architecture and arts where you had a lot of (often useless, sometimes tasteless) additions that obscured the main work and made it look so ridiculously opulent, but often with little utility etc.
@@knyghtryder3599 "try taking a bus or opening a checking account or buying a PC" soooo as it just happens i have done all of the above in Russia recently... -buses are frequent, cheap and clean. You can buy the tickets on the bus using any payment you want(cash/card/wireless)...honestly never thought "try taking a bus" was even an issue anywhere. -opened a checking account using my phone. Is it some sort of a challenge in your country? -bought a PC online. Assembled to my specs and delivered the very same day. Very strange set of "nothing works", i'm only left to speculate that these are the issues you ran into yourself in your country.
This is what I tell everyone who's so worried about the Russians pressing the button If Putin doesn't get outright ignored or mutinied by the people he orders to press the button, the button is gonna get pressed and either nothing happens, or a dead nuke flies out and drops a deactivated warhead in the middle of DC.
It’s not as big an issue as one might think. It’s likely they’d start with small weapons, about 1 kiloton (Hiroshima was 12 and Nagasaki 20 kilotons). And airburst them to maximize blast damage which also minimizes fallout because the fireball doesn’t touch the ground. The nuclear attacks in Japan had minimal fallout. The radiation was overwhelmingly “prompt” radiation, which is the instant ‘zap’ when the bomb detonates. Russia is deterred from using them more so because of a potential NATO response. It’s rumored that the U.S. would reply with two nukes for each one Russia uses. So it’s hard to improve one’s battlefield position with nukes if the other side replies in kind (or with double the response)
The fallout from the Chernobyl disaster reached across Europe as far as northern Scandinavia and Ireland. You just need to wait until the wind is blowing the right way. You can guarantee, though, if Russia did that, the entirety of Europe and all its allies would treat that as an act of war against Europe. And when they've already got fallout blowing their way from Ukraine, would they even bother to wait for the wind to blow the right way before nuking Moscow?
@@kevinhammond2361 at one point the US government made an oddly specific statement regarding something Putin said or happened at the Kremlin or something. And I remember the interpretation what that the US was sending Putin a message saying that if he did use a nuke, they know exactly where he is.
@@tealkerberus748a reactor meltdown and nuclear bomb are apples and oranges. The bigger the blast the longer the radiation half life's away in the atmosphere. Dirty bombs are more in line with what you imagine a bomb fallout would look like, and is used as a no man's land deterrent.
The Atomic Dome (or Peace Dome) in Hiroshima is a weird place to visit. One of our guides mentioned one of the reasons the Dome itself survived is because it was sheathed in lead or tin, I don't remember which, but it was vaporized in the blast so structurally, the Dome didn't take that much force. The museum there is an eerie place. I certainly hope we never see another city bombed by nukes.
10:21 - you didn't mention the key point - the invasion of the Falklands by the Argentinians did not prompt a nuclear response, and nor did the threat of a nuclear response deter the Argentinians. Oddly, what DID have an effect was the Brits demonstrating that they could hit Buenos Aires with conventional weapons (launched by the Vulcan bombers), causing the Argentinians to withdraw forces from the Falklands and focus on home defense. But the fact that there was almost certainly a nuclear-armed submarine within trivial range of the city - no effect at all!
Well it goes against the atempt to paint the pucture of Russia is incompetent and the only nation that is not scarry whit its nukes. When in reallity Nuclear war is almost imposible these days since it might cause self destruction for the won causing it.
OMG. The Falkland "war" was small and quick. Maps in Argentina still show the islands as their territory (they call them the Malvinas.) The Falkland islands had a few hundred British troops. Argentina's military was so weak, if it were not for a lucky shot on the Sheffield, it would not even be a footnote in history.
@@SunriseLAW You do talk a load of rubbish! Argentina did not expect ANY military response, let alone an invasion and the liberation of the Falklands was an extremely tricky operation. We lost a number of ships sunk and damaged. Had they sunk or damaged one of our carriers, it would have probably been impossible to liberate the Falkland islands.
The wind is usually from the west, so fallout would just head towards Voronezh and Volgograd, randomly killing 1000s of innocents in southern Russia in a completely unpredictable way.
Russia has always been a country that would burn itself to win a war, Hitler and Napoleon learned that the hard way. If the oil money runs dry and Moscow is under threat, we could see a "Holy Land of Belka".
Russia burned Moscow to the ground to prevent the French from taking it. Then the French army perished in the winter. The Germans met the same fate in much the same way, only that time Moscow itself was spared. Russia has been invaded many times over the centuries. None of the invading armies ever make it out alive and their disaster typically results in a change of government in the invading nation. Napoleon was stripped of power and exiled to an island, Hitler died in his bunker.
It's not just that. One of Russia's main geopolitical goals is to court the Global South to be on their side. Them using nukes paints them as being no different as the countries that colonized and plundered them in the past.
You need to replace the uranium in a nuke every 5 years, Russia stopped producing uranium in 2002 and never bought any uranium from any country. And seeing as their aircraft carrier is classified as the worst warship in the world, I do not think that their nukes are maintained any better.
A problem with nuclear weapons is that they will work very well on concentrated troops, cities/population centers, BUT the invading troops are not concentrated in a center, but dispersed along the front lines, so you might take out the 'center' but would hurt your own troops facing the expanding front of your enemy.
Plus nuclear weapons are not really useful in conquest. And as for the Kursk invasion it would be hard to justify nuking your own territory. And nuclear fallout is impossible to contain to a certain area, so it'd force other countries into the conflict.
@@tomybartok99 Hiroshima bombing also caused Nuclear rain on southeast asia which caused a lot of cancerous deaths , that is why during my childhood our teachers always tells us to go inside when there's a rain because it might carry a contaminated radioactive rainwater... Now imagine the worldwide effect with x50 the power.
US military did lots of frontline combat testing with small tactical nukes, even artillery and sending troops in immediately. Turns out, its kinda stupid to try and occupy an area that was just nuked. Also turns out if you use a tactical nuke on an advancing formation, its kinda dumb to push through the nuclear fallout in teh center of the entire enemy line, and now you either have to nuke the entire front, or waste resources fighting a split army with a big ol nuclear zone in the middle. If you nuke the whole front line, welp, now that entire area is uninhabitable .
@@dogsbecute I find difficult to believe how many people can be so ignorant, this issue attracts them like flies. It doesn't have to be dropped on the advancing force... Man, some people are so incredibly ignorant.
@@AuroraColoradoUSA Your response is useless, as you have not provided any explanation for your views. All you did was throw a snide insult, so congratulations, you are just like the rest of the ignorant people on the Internet.
@@bogdanafilonich33I'm genuinely not sure why it matters... Is that the official anglicized word? Everyone knows exactly what is being talked about. I guess it helps with morale though using the Ukrainian term like when Mexicans pronounce the "X" as an English "H" to stay independent. I assume the Russian spelling is киев or кейв or something like that? It's not even the same alphabet.
@@monkemode8128 when you say Kiev' you use the Russian way of pronouncing the word. When you say 'Kyiv' you use the Ukrainian ( and official) way of saying the word. Why matters ? Instead of let's say Mexico I will write Meksicko. Do you like it ? How does that feel?
You're a genius explaining about this complex topic being intelligent, well knowledgeable on the subject, hilarious, exploring all possibilities and venues without a laugh or changing your voice's tone. Just wonderful and not boring.
Before Putin Russia was at it worst, inflation over 100% Boris the traitor sold of 70% of all russian assets to USA companies and caused mass unemployment and starvation. When the bar its set below the ground its impossible to be beat it.
It is healthy for a "swedish expert" to learn just one Russian word. The word is BARDAK. In Russia, no one knows what works or what does not. Will anything at all work after pressing the button.
Since the nuclear material can only deteriorate so fast (Halflife), put a new detonator around and go? To answer your (half)question -- no, afterwards nothing will work. *I think you mean "when pressing the button"*
@@AND-od5jt plutonium is chemically active and corrode pretty fast. Much much faster in the presence of humidity and hydrogen (which it can punch out of surrounding stuff due to being radioactive). If you're interested in details you may go through references under "Pit_(nuclear_weapon)" wikipedia article.
He's not threatening, I listen to all his words (he is my president) and he is extremely hesitant of using nukes. That's West's propaganda that Putin is that reckless and will nuke everyone if he has a chance. The only thing Putin said about it (several times) is he is going to nuke everyone if Russia's existence will be under great threat, but it seems to be pretty much impossible (Kursk invasion seems to be annoying for Putin, but nothing more threatening)
Man, move that flag away. My Ukrainian brothers are dying, fighting pointless war for other interests. If Nato really cares about Ukrainian people , they will support Ukraine with troops. This war will cost only Ukraine at the end...
Yes. But Putin enjoys how it feels to say those words out loud to an international audience. What more could a narcissist ask for? It's the ultimate power move. He enjoys that feeling of instilling fear in others. That's all its ever been. Ego talk!
The reason why the nuclear US is not in such danger from Canada and Mexico is because, despite some issues a century or so ago, its because the US learned something that neither Russia nor China ever learned, it's much better [or profitable] to be a friend than a bully. Of course, it usually means that it's better that neighbors are not ready to attack if you get weaker.
To think that the US gained the suzeranity of its part of the world through "Friendship" & "Peace" is so American. The USA has managed to secure its borders through the threat of invasion and the implementation of banana republics throughout the Americas in the early 20th century.
Gather round for the story of "The Boy Who Cried Nuke". A little boy named Putin was running a country poorly. One day another country didn't obey him, and he yelled "I'll nuke you! I'll nuke you!" and the other country backed off. Later another country didn't obey his every waking demand, and he shrieked "I'll nuke you! I'll nuke you!". The other country hesitated, pulled back, and discussed with other nations. A third country refused to become his slave. Putin screamed "I'll nuke you! I'll nuke you!" but the country *didn't* obey. Putin, surrounded by countries that would wreck him if he dared try, didn't nuke the country because that would be stupid. He'd already taught everyone to distrust his impotent threats, and now nobody ran away when he shrieked.
Not to mention how you'd have to be literally the dumbest human being alive to use nuclear weapons and risk the end of life. Not only that but you'd have to be really desperate to use nuclear weapons on a country which isn't half as big as yours and is supposed to be 1/8th the military power you are. The fact that they've fallen to nuclear threats shows how abysmal the Russians have done according to not only everyone's expectations but their own expectations. They find more and more excuses and boogeymen to blame for their failures and excruciatingly slow progress and high losses on a daily basis.
Putin's nuclear threats always remind me of a scene in Carlito's Way, when his lawyer pulls his snub nose revolver on someone to feel like a tough guy, Carlito tells him, "Dave, you are gonna wave that thing at the wrong guy, he's gonna take it from you and bury it up your ass guaranteed." Similar situation, as in: threats only work to a point, and that point is when the wrong opponent is going to take you to task for talking big but acting small. By the time you realize that they've called your bluff, too late!
Nuclear weapon usage would not only force China and India to sever ties with Russia, it would also immediately lead to public opinion galvanizing behind a direct intervention in Ukraine.
They would force nothing if Russia had good reason to use it, and with Kiev gone i doubt NATO would choose to have the same happen to their cities to defend a pile of rubble.
NATO clearly stated that nuclear fallout from deliberate harm to the Zaporizhia power plant would trigger article 5. I can only imagine that a bomb would be the same. If Russia wants to avoid a full scale war with NATO, they better hold their atomic horses.
First part is correct, they would likely lose friends, but nobody is going to do anything to annoy a nation that just employed a nuclear device, just like nobody did anything to the U.S. after the two dropped in Japan. There is nothing that a nation can do against a nation that just used a nuclear weapon on a proxy state. It would be more likely that NATO would eliminate friendly proxy states to Russia in the same manner. If the Russians can nuke proxy states, so could the west, whether morality would justify such on the side of the west as it hasn't invested near the loss the Russians have is another topic.
Hey op, saying that you inadvertantly admit that ukraine was happy being in the USSR because why would ukraine contribute to ussr greatness if it didnt like it?
I can only conclude that Putin has never watched Twins, and thus does not know the Second Rule in a Crisis Situation, "If you chose to bluff, you must be prepared to have your bluff called."
It's the ego, they never expected anyone to even stand up to them in the first place. Just look at old videos of the early days of the invasion. They started believing their own lies. In every somewhat sane country, you can have a negative view on some aspects of it, no place, no nation is perfect. Not so in Russian education and media space. Everything is perfect, Russia never did anything wrong, never failed at anything. They are the best. You tell that to your population for long enough, they start believing it, and then reality hits, like Ukrainians not only stopping them, but pushing them back. It wreaks havoc on the average Russian mind. I've had people totally lose it and laugh maniacally as they described how pathetic NATO is etc. Once they lose, oh boy, that's gonna be a shitshow.
Treaties Russia signed to respect the independence and the borders of Ukraine. For example: 1) The Minsk Agreement (December 1991) 2) The Budapest Memorandum (1994) 3) The Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation (1997) 4) The Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet (1997) - Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea was in violation of this one and of the extension from 2010 In exchange for giving up their nukes, the U.S., the U.K. and Russia would guarantee Ukraine's security in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum. After the Soviet Union collapsed Ukraine was the third largest nuclear power in the world for a short time. Russia attacked a sovereign Ukraine twice. Their words mean nothing.
@@DecadentVanilla nevertheless, Russia can claim the eastward nato expansion as infringing on their sphere of influence, and can use that (and are using that currently) to justify war. Superpowers need buffer states, no matter how you look at it. Russia does, China does (North Korea, Mongolia, Nepal/Bhutan), and the US does (nearly all of Latin America).
@@gotohyoshihisa3971 i disagree; during the Cold War especially, the US was scared of expanding Russian influence in Latin America. So guess what we did? When we saw any country that had even hinted at developing relations toward the USSR and away from the US, we either launched a coup and installed a puppet dictator (Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Panama), or full-on invaded the country and then tried to install a puppet dictator (Grenada, Cuba). Superpowers like buffer states. Even in the presence of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction.
@@DecadentVanilla Russia has a larger GDP than all of Europe except Britain and France. Plus, Europe largely relies on Russian energy to, ya know, survive. So I guess that makes Russia a very influential state. Also known as a “superpower”
Are Russia's nuclear weapons in any better condition than the rest of their army? When you can't even count on your tanks, do you really want to be standing near by when you activate the doomsday device?
Irrelevant since the moment russia uses them it gets bombed by France then invaded by China. So the nukes only "work" as long as they aren't used. You can't blackmail someone if you use you cards up. So Westerners hope russia will never use anything so they can pretend to be afraid and keep their corrupt deals. Have you heard Germany wants to arrest the Ukrainian who destroyed the illegal Nordsream pipelines while refusing to punish the criminals who built it? Yup. Still corrupt as always.
Lacking very solid intelligence the best assumption is that they do have weapons sufficient to provide deterrence. Realistically, any nuclear arsenal we don't have very thorough knowledge about should be assumed to be dangerous. For that matter, it's probably a good idea to assume that countries we don't know about could have at least a bomb or two. Nukes are eighty-year-old technology, after all.
There are several reasons nuclear weapons are not useful in this war. First, Ukraine is West of Moscow, St. Petersberg and Rostov on Don. The prevailing winds blow West to East so any nuclear fallout will be blown back into Russia's face contaminating the largest population centers. Second, you can't use tactical weapons on enemy troops that are close to your own troops. Third, I doubt anything could possibly make Russia look weaker than requiring nuclear weapons against such a smaller, non-nuclear enemy. Fourth, none of Russia's "allies" support Russia using any kind of nukes. Fifth, if even one nuclear weapon is fired in anger, the entire world will immediately decide that Putin is too dangerous to continue and he will be targeted with prejudice.
Difference is where would they nuke if they did with wagner? Their own country? If they bombed ukraine it wouldnt matter wagner was a russion military group
Plausible deniability, like when Iran says "wasn't me", when Houthis sink an innocent ship. This way Russia can deny what Wagner is doing in Africa, they learned they could do this by France's example in Africa.
This is admittedly a tempting argument to make, but it's not necessarily that simple. Russia's strategic rocket forces are essentially an entirely separate branch of the military, just like the US air force is separate to the army. They are smaller than russia's air force and army, but they are, as far as outside observers can tell, extremely well equipped and well funded. And unlike the russian army, air force, and navy, you don't see stories about rampant unchecked corruption being released about the strategic rocket forces every 3 months. It is entirely possible, likely even, that corruption has diminished the capabilities of the russian nuclear arsenal, but the problem is that it's both enormous and kept very separate from the rest of the military and procurement chain. So it would be much harder for corruption to really set in and destroy stuff like it has for the russian army. I don't think a nuclear response is even remotely likely for any of a dozen reasons including several in this video, but I don't think we have enough evidence to say that their nuclear arsenal is non-functional.
@@physicsunderstander4958Nuclear commission guys from outside Russia check their nuclear weapon stockpiles often (or used to before the war kicked in, like, every 3 months it was), they are functional and well-maintained. And it makes sense, as long as they have nukes, the only thing they have to worry about is quelling internal turmoil. The problem is that said plan assumed no one would dare invade Russia and neither that they would invade Russia while being invaded themselves, and also said plan assumed the so-called invaders would be full-on westerners, instead it's just Russians V2. Which is a problem because they never expected to get proxy war'ed by the West and only because rhe Ukrainians refused to give up. It was never part of the plan to supply Ukrainians with guns to fight the Russians, but the Russians ended up asking for that to happen by breaking the Crimea stalemate in such a violent manner. The whole point is that, Russia only would have won if Kiev surrendered. It didn't, the plan failed.
Considering that the conservative public estimate on Russian nuclear capabilities is that roughly 50% are incapable of either being fired or detonating... I don't think we have much to worry about
Also consider that most if not all of Russia's ballistic nuclear missile stockpile were built in the soviet era in Ukraine. The uranium mines used to get the nuclear material is in Ukraine. Even if Russia wanted to modernise their missile stockpile to get them all operational they could not replace the warhead cores with fresh Nuclear material as they typically only have a 20 year life span if they compare to US warheads. Also bare in mind the missiles would be liquid fuelled so they need to be raised, fuelled for 15 minutes then launched. Nuclear missiles are far from low tech pieces of equipment and if they can't even keep their navy, army and air force in working order it's unlikely their nukes will work.
@@onehandedtimmy6826 Non-Gov nuclear inspectors have checked RU nuclear capabilities more than once. They do work, but it's unclear how many could be launched, the load is functional, guaranteed, no idea about the rockets and other delivery methods. That could be the issue, having the load but not the methods to deliver.
18:30: the main difference between the long term severity of a full blown blow up of a nuclear power plant like chernobyl and a nuclear bomb is that nuclear power stations contain orders of magnitude more radioactive material than nukes, not that "most of the radiation [of a nuclear weapon] goes into the atmosphere and spreads around the world."
Putin's to dumb to realize nukes deter nuke attacks nothing more and since Ukraine does not have nukes or is using nukes the nukes are totally useless to deter a military attack since they are using conventional weapons not nukes it is so sad the old man cannot figure this out💀💀
Slight correction. It's not the amount of radioactive material, though I do grant you there is more in a reactor and it's casing. It's the half life. The nuclear material used in bombs has a VERY short half life. Meaning, after even a few days it's level of radiation will have halved, potentially multiple times. Add to that most modern nukes are made to be very efficient, using as much of their nuclear material for the explosion, and radiation from a bomb crater is a small term issue. The fuel used in reactors, on the other hand... has a much slower decay. It doesn't need to release it's energy all at once after all. Meaning it can take months, years, decades, for the level of radioactivity to halve even once.
Another different between Chernobyl and Hiroshima: the little boy bomb contained 64 kg of uranium, Chernobyl's reactor number 4 contained 190 tons of uranium.
Because Putin already threatened multiple times to use his "nukes" 🤷🏻♀️ Don't issue a threat you're not prepared to carry out. And he's done so numerous times already, how many "red lines" did Putin set up and then ignored beeing "crossed"? No one takes his "threats" serious anymore 😂
@@AK-tf3fchahahaha no it’s because your prime minister is not insane also Xi made it clear China would not tolerate the use of nuclear weapons. The problem is the nation that uses a nuclear weapon first will be labeled as a THREAT by ALL nations and then get ganged up on by the other nations. So it’s a case go ahead do it the rest of the world could steamroll you then your only option would be to keep using nuclear weapons or surrender. Also of note Russian culture would be despised going forward after the use.
@@AK-tf3fckeep living in fantasy land & that’s coming from an American. India is not even remotely close to the reason Ukraine is not ruins, whatever helps you sleep at night tho chief
People keep under estimating Ukraine - Germany was a similar size to Ukraine in 1941 - military significantly bigger - but they pushed deep into Russia - Ukraine could, theoretically, get quite deep into Russia, but I think this unlikely. As for the Nuclear option - I do not believe that this is an option for Russia, 99% of their weapons likely do not work based on IAEA reports. Lastly, to use a nuclear weapon against a non-nuclear country would open a can of worms that Russia would be unlikely to survive - there is no country that would consider such an attack as either justified or tolerable. Russia would be alone, and given the potential for fallout on NATO states - this could be a red line for NATO that would provoke a military response.
@@sanher20 Yep, you are right, I must have had WWI population in my head - in June 1939 a census showed Germany had a pop of 79.4 million - thanks for pointing it out 👍👍
@@ThomasZukovic The IAEA conducted a report in the early 1990s as Russia was decommissioning some of their tactical nukes - they found that their active weapons were lacking working parts for launch, lacking nuclear materials, control circuits ineffective die to damage/corrosion, launch vehicles poorly maintained and unable to launch weapons. It was a litany of state failure - given that Russia has failed to maintain its nuclear naval vessels due to cost, corruption and negligence - I doubt their nuclear weapons are in an improved state to what the IAEA found some 30 years ago.
To be fair.... the Argentina's goverment didn't (for like, not even in the least possibility) counted that the UK would do ANYTHING at all. They were 9999% completely sure that the UK would make some statement at the U.N. and then Argentina would have to pay some compensation and that would be everything, problem solved, and the islands would remain to Argentina and the military junta would be acclaimed forever to be heroes.... They didn't think (AT ALL) that the UK would send a single fish boat to the Falklands.... not to mention any military ship and not not not to mention an "invasion" force to recover the islands. So, it's not that the nukes didn't deter Argentina.... the mere posibility of a war wasn't even taken into consideration.
The Falklands wasn't an existential threat to the United Kingdom. It's not really the same situation because no one ever claimed that if the British lost it would threaten their very existence, which is what Putin is claiming in his justification for his threats.
If you all agree to ban nuclear weapons, but there’s a small group of people who refuse to get rid of theirs. Then the only way to defend yourself is to keep the nuclear weapons just in case. No matter how hypocritical it may be. To defeat evil, you have to break the rules, otherwise the cheater will always win.
From what I gather I would bet they have nothing usable that wouldn't pose a major threat to themselves first. It is very high maintenance technology, and we've seen how well that works over decades of Russian corruption.
Not true. The nuclear S.T.A.R.T. treaties have American inspectors sent to all known russian nuclear sites to do assessments, while it also allows the Russians the same access. Their nukes have been seen by many american inspectors. But thats just it. Theyve been seen. Obviously they cant open them up. We also have treaties that allow both sides to do fly-overs on their territory, which is a fascinating treaty thats a relic of its time but is still in effect.
@@dogsbecute not true, russia has always had problems complying. Its been up in the air well before his 3 day war. He was always trying to avoid showing them.
@@bobthekobb I do like this thought, we believed they where obfuscating higher numbers. When it really was out of shame that the numbers had fallen so low....
okay, warhawk. Russia isn't attacking us, so there's no need for us to attack Russia -- they're only attacking Ukraine. And if you're willing to risk WW3 all for the sake of acting tought against big boy Vlad, then you really are an evil person
I personally do not think Russia's nukes work. Look at the condition of their other, simpler equipment. Also, isn't it true that maintenance of nuclear weapons is both expensive and requires high-level expertise? If so, Russia's society-wide corruption knocks out the likelihood that funds would actually be applied to maintenance, and Russia's post-Soviet culture of passivity and poor education removes the likelihood of available experise.
Not necessarily. Perhaps the reason for the degradation of the older military equipment is because Russia is putting their budget into their nuclear arsenal.
The other thing that I haven't seen mentioned is that a man who owns 30 palaces isn't going to trade that for spending the rest of his life underground in a concrete bunker.
When talking about Bucha, please remember that there are numerous Ukrainian cities levelled or damaged by russians with their inhabitants murdered or injured. Mariupol, Kharkiv, Severodonetsk, Vuhledar, Avdiivka - all these cities are historically russian speaking and were once loyal to russia.
For two years you have not shown any evidence that it was the Russian army that killed people in Bucha or that there were any killed people there at all.
Russia flattening ethnic Russian cities in Ukraine like Mariupol or Bakhmut makes as much sense as France invading Switzerland "to defend" the French Swiss minority and then razing Lausanne and Geneva to the ground...
Ukraine loyal to Russia? I am sure some were, but very few. Yea, a lot speak Russian especially in places like Kharkiv but that doesn't equal to 1% loyalty. It's just habit.
If you Ukraine had nukes Russia may not have started anything in the donbass or crimea or obviously may not have started this recent full-scale war. If Russia had done those things anyway Ukraine could use its nukes to leverage more support from its allies. "We are facing an existential threat. we'll have to use nuclear weapons unless you help us win this war quickly"
But ukraine gave all his nukes away to russia in order to get the kremlin ground and they would never start a war. It's written down on paper. Russia has broken it. Ukraine no more nukes, kremlin gone and now in war.
That would have meant the old Russia-friendly government from before 2014 would have been nuclear-armed. Like imagine Belarus today but with their own nuclear capacity.
@@SusCalvin I wouldn't be so surprised if Ukraine has launched or is going to launch a nuclear program because of this war.... it'll be interesting to see, for sure!
Assuming Russia even has such devices anymore given the test ban permitted them to bow out from squandering the little money they had on such technologies, the modern devices are clean. Hiroshima was rebuilt and populated within two years.
they have tactical nukes, and the long range ones would be for bigger conflicts. yes it's a good thing Chinese and Indian leaders are reminding Putin not to start, at least someone over there is trying to do the right thing. i think they will probably use the tactical nukes before the war is over but probably not on their own territory
Keep in mind it has been proven that 75% of Russia's nuclear weapons do not work at all. With it being highly suspected that less than 10% of Russia's total nuclear arms are functional (Given that this info is from nuclear arms investigators in the late 2000's, this number might be lower). Also keep in mind how well they maintain their equipment the number of functional nuclear arms maybe even lower.
@@DrumToTheBassWoop no, actually all those money that should have been spent to military, should have been spent at nukes too. But those money just disappeared
It is all bravado until someone presses the Red Button. Also, Putin is restricted by the fact he actually want to capture Ukraine. Turning it into a nuclear wasteland wouldn't help.
@@humanharddrive1 but he's still right and almost everyone with an inkling of understanding of international security agreed. Using nuclear weapons is a taboo that would rid Russia immediately if its rather flimsy allies china and India. It'd also completely change US and European stances on various questions from use of long range weapons to deployment of NATO troops.
🇺🇸🗽 📢Slava Ukraine. 🫂Hugs and much love from Indiana, USA🙏‼ 🕊️Stay strong, stand proud and ✝️Keep the faith. 🤷♀️Believe in your people and Leader in this time.⏰ 💁 For your 🫡President did not abandon you, do not abandon him 👀👏✅ 🗽"GIve me Liberty and freedom🔔 or give me death" 🦅 🕊️🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇦🇺🇦🕊️ 🌻 💙💛
10:10 I don't think Mexico ever seriously considered the Zimmerman Telegram offer. They were certainly curious about why Germany would think this was a feasible idea, since German intelligence had a good reputation at the time, so Mexico did look into whether what the Germans were proposing was even possible, and after reviewing the capabilities of the U.S. they concluded the German intelligence capabilities must be overrated, which was useful to know for its own sake. That was about it though.
Nukes require uninterrupted maintenance. They are very delicate. It's a ton of money with no income payoff. So they will skimp if they are not neglecting entirely.
Test ban permitted them to bow out gracefully not only from establishing a purported arsenal, but even the expense of demonstration and verification through physical tests. They likely have none and instead they have been involved in counter intelligence and probably a collaboration with the west to convince everyone they do. That would be useful to both sides, except in the instance of Ukraine where U.S. intelligence would probably inform Ukrainian defense that they could in fact proceed without concern.
Yeah, I was reading an article about how the cities in Japan was only evacuated for a month to two and I was trying to figure out how come the power plant melt down lasts centuries, and it all has to do with the ice tobs, I can't spell, but when a bomb is detonated in the Air, there is less fall out from dust that is shot into the air because the force pushes down minimizing the dust the long lasting icetubes can stick to, which decay really fast in the atmosphere. The melt down was at ground level so the long lasting ice tubes was able to fuse with the ground and dust allowing for a larger fail out area because it exploded outwards up and to the sides in all directions, where the wind carried that radiated debris and dust and dirt back towards the plant and town and eastward, before failing back down.
So does this mean that NATO can get directly involved in liberating Ukraine without the fear of nuclear retaliation, provided that the alliance acts only within occupied Ukraine and Russia's border regions?
No. Mostly because it's far more safe and effective doing a Lend-Lease with NATO supplies than boots on the ground. Ukraine isnt part of NATO (At least right now, they would definitely try to get in once the war ends) so I doubt any member state would want to sacrifice any of their troops to help a country that isn't in their club.
Not "without," no. It's tough to predict what someone will do with his back to the wall, and an overwhelming defeat even outside of Russia may put Putin there. But it probably does reduce the probability of such a response.
Not just border regions, all way to moscow, this is a precedent that russia won't use nukes period, and anyone denying that is delusional acting in bad faith. As to "Ukraine not being in NATO" WTF, this didn't stop UKRAINIAN FORCES FROM FIGHTING IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN. Westerners are very hypocritical if they think we should fight for them while refusing to fight with us. Only thing that explains that is extreme corruption in the West.
18:40 I suggest an edit here on the difference between an airburst nuclear bomb and a nuclear meltdown. Nuclear meltdowns are very problematic not because they stick radiation into the ground (nukes do that too, and meltdowns also release massive amounts of radioactive dust into the atmosphere), but because of the massive amounts of nuclear material involved. A nuke may have at most a ton of nuclear material, a nuclear plant will have ten to a hundred times more than that. This amounts to a much greater amount of fallout, which is the main problem.
This is... wrong. Commercial nuclear fuel is low-enrichment. Most of the nuclear waste, like, 90+% of it is in fact, things like rubber gloves and metal cages which are only waste if they cannot be recycled into other nuclear work. The radio-hazard of these materials is low, but present. Assuming that the nuclear facility does not maintain spent rods on site. In which case the issue is that there are spent rods on site whose containment (usually a pool of water) may be breached. If those pools of water remain in tact then everything is fine.
My guess would be because their weapons are fueled with water, their silos are rusted shut or he lost the launch codes. Select your own version of corruption or incompetence.
Who else thinks that *William Spaniel* and *Andres Puck Nielsen* are like the _vitamins_ and _minerals_ of information about the war in Ukraine? Who else follows and appreciates both almost equally _(with a slight preference for one or similar appreciation for both)?_ ❤❤❤❤
Why was Russia magically given the Soviet Union's seat on the security council? Why not any one of the other former Soviets or, better yet, none at all?
Because the Russian SFSR was by FAR the largest and most populous Republic within the Soviet Union. They were the economic and political leader of the whole thing by all intend and purposes. Plus, I can imagine that none of the other Republics would have had a fun time inheriting the debt of a country ten times it's size, y'know? Instead, Russia had to deal with that. They got all of the benefits, but also all the issues that came with being the official successor
1 thing about nuclear weapons today is that they're not nearly as radioactive as the fission bomb. Fusion bombs (hydrogen), make radioactive fallout a limiting factor
Air bursts have limited fallout unless 'dirty' shells are added. Ground detonations create fallout and cobalt or other materials can be added to make extra fallout on purpose.
Exactly. Being a regional power in the sphere of influence of a greater power isn't really as funny to the russians as back when the THEY where the greater power. Their Beijing masters would never allow the use of such weapons.
@@J_X999 I more meant it separately. Two reason, one was China and secondly was Russias hope to return to the world economy. My bad for the subpar English!
18:44 About the difference between nuclear meltdowns (specifically Chornobyl) vs. nuclear bombs - nuclear bombs have their nuclear reactions happen really, really quick because otherwise it just fizzles out. Nuclear reactors have comparatively much slower nuclear reactions because you want to produce electricity, not destroy everything. But because they're really different it means they generate different kind of isotopes or at least produce them in different quantities.
i know i will be annoying but there were a lot of factors for the surrender of japan, one of the most signficant ones was the entry of the USSR into the conflict, afterall during ww2 japan and the USSR werent at war technically, since the USSR and Japan formed a non agression treaty over their border disputed in mongolia, so after the entry of the USSR, it showed the japanese leadership that the soviet union would not act as a third party and they wouldnt have a chance for conditional surrender
For the segment at 9:35: my goal for this is not to make a blanket claim that nuclear weapons have never affected any calculations at the periphery, just that the historical record is not as good as it may seem. I struggled writing that section, trying to weigh completeness versus not going down a history rabbit hole and sidetracking the main point of the video. Hope that is clear. This is not how I would go about addressing the question if this were a true research setting!
This is understandable
U ever done a live discussion in front of an audience?
That is fair.
The fact is russian nuclear doctrine called for nuke strikes when russian territory is taken: and now it is PROVEN it is a bluff. That's it. The russia won't use nukes. Period. Anyone arguing otherwise it disingenuous. ALL RED LINES WERE CROSSED.
I don’t understand your explanation nor what you think is the matter
Pretty much every dispute between nuclear powers is just an increasingly high stakes game of “no balls”
what worries me is when two super-powers have a dispute then dispatch nuclear attack subs to shadow the other guys fleet/hang out in their legal waters, all of these little power games governments play could start a nasty chain of events, and, they already have.
I can't remember where it was but a NATO patrol once forced a Soviet U-boat to stay submerged for something insane like 16 hours, which lead to the Soviet navy sending reinforcements, I'm sure you can see where this was headed lol, not only do they make a lot of situations more dangerous/tense if you have border/geopolitical disputes with countries around you.
I think most people accept that Putin will have balls if he is choosing between an invasion that hits Moscow and using Nukes. His entire effort here is to reduce the risk of Moscow being invaded by NATO from the south. If he is ever facing that, he will strike first to end it.
It's MAD
@@unfortunately_fortunate2000*Laughs in 15min left to live before a nuke hits Colorado from a sub launching all the way from the coast* … shit scary yo
More like small balls
The thing with nuclear weapons is that you can't win, you can only make sure that everyone loses.
pray for deterrence and if it fails, holy fuck pray for de-escalation
@@kuilu Were those really necessary for winning? Weren't those cities chosen because other cities were already leveled by conventional bombing?
@@kuilu yes and no. Japan was already on the brink of defeat at the time of the nuclear bombings. Their Navy and Air Force were destroyed and an invasion of the Japanese mainland was imminent.
@@r2020E that and the us was the only nuclear armed state at the time
@@kuilu how many countries could have retaliated with nukes against the US in 1945? cmon it's not a hard question
8:34 Ukraine: *invades Russia*
Russia: "Ukraine, there's a 50/50 chance you're gonna kill yourself!"
Ukraine: "Those are the best odds I've had in years."
"Screw it, the best defense is a good offense. Charge!"
Ukraine: "Hold my vodka...."
@@NKA23gorilka
@@sirynkahorilka
@@andriinaum1411burnilka
It’s probably one of the stupidest military strategies. Saying “I have nukes so I’m gonna invade your country and hope you’ll be too afraid to defend yourself.”
Yeah the world must not be held ransom by the USA holding the nuclear button
@@rrsharizam Most countries prefer the US to be their trade and defense partner. Take another dose of that copium.
@@zeromodulus1679 I don't think so
@@rrsharizam being in deep denial never helped anyone bud
Dude the US has a patent on this idea shush.
There's a joke: Putin asks Stalin what he would do about this invasion. Stalin draws on his WW2 experience and says: "Get lots of American equipment aid and ammunition, give it to the Ukrainian soldiers as the vanguard troops and you'll be fine." Putin nods at the sage advice and then says yes that happened, but what do I do about it?
Heheheheh.
Wait a second do people unironically believe that it was ukraine that fought ww2 and not russia, belarus , and the other ex soviet states?
Like it :D
@@fireice8Only no one helped us near Moscow and we knocked it out from the Nazis, the same thing happened in Stalingrad, especially since you collaborated with the Germans at the beginning of the war and there is evidence of this.
@@fireice8 The aid didnt reach russia until after stalingrad and russia was already wiinning
There's also the issue that with bloodthirsty nuclear threats being made every month or so, any future warnings by Russia won't be taken as seriously as would otherwise be expected.
Make that nearly daily ... certainly the propaganda channels.
boy who cried nukes
They are lying about their nuclear capabilities.
Which is actually kind of worse... Because now he has no choice but to prove it or stop making those claims...
So before I get blown out of existence....Is a fully proportional representative democracy at the global level really too much to ask? Is nuclear war really preferable to that?? Really!?
Okay I spoke my piece. Hit the button
@@JDSileo It's not Putler himself threatening. It's his mouthpieces on propaganda channels that make the daily threats.
you can only rattle that sabre so many times, until people turn around and say, "oh just fuck off!"
He rattled no sabres. Western media framed it as threats. He merely said he has nuclear weapons, because a foreign power used a neighbouring country as a proxy. Don't be gullible.
If you rattle a saber for too long, the pommel will loosen, and the blade will rust and dull.
😂😂
When did Russia threaten Ukraine with nuclear weapons?
Nukes are there just in case nato should dare to involve directly.
@@OleDiaBole
Pay attention.
“don’t use a nuke when you can solve the problem without it. you cannot un-nuke anything, and you will always have the option. when it comes to nukes, it’s never too late.”
stop making all this sense
Why are you using quotations when you're not even gonna say who quoted it?
@@Clarity_ControlI do that sometimes when I'm not sure if the quote is misattributed to someone or not.
This is wrong, modern nukes don't spew radiation, just big TNT. Thus you can "un-nuke" land.
Simple answer: Ukraine is already under an existential threat. There's nothing further Russia can escalate to that can make it worse for Ukraine.
@@wardakawababa6213 they could level kyiv....in a day...there's that.
@@jameshayes9932 At this point in the war, why haven’t they already? If anything, them doing that would probably fuel them even more
@@Real_Evil_Marioso you want them to do it? And then blame because they did it?
@@jameshayes9932Moscow would be gone then
@@jameshayes9932 That's funny.... not sure if you're keeping up with the news but Kyiv is still there. You don't think Ukraine can do the same to Moscow if they wanted? Get a clue.
If someone threatening nukes is enough to make you surrender well you already lost, if the threats are real, you already lost, if the threats aren’t real you have a chance. It’s basically impossible not to call the bluff.
Nuclear deterrent is a last resort weapon. Russia is not on her last leg.
@Hope_Boat Nuclear detterant is to stop other people using nukes. They suck as a last resort weapon in a war. If you use them on enemy troops as your last resort well youre nuking you own country at that point and if you nuke someone elses cities yours also get nuked. From an occupied country you can fight, seen it time and time again, from a smoking crater where your country used to be, you cant.
Also impossible to predict the follow-up. Thanks for calling me in.
@Hope_Boat nuclear weapons are the "I lost, but you won't win either" option.
Against a non-nuclear opponent it is a suicide bombing.
You effectively say: I am irrational and a threat to everyone.
IF Putler uses a nuke, his entire administration becomes a target for every three letter agency in the world and you best believe there would be economic and kinetic action taken by even allies of his to take him or his nukes out of the picture.
The world knows that if you let it slide even once, everyone would make nukes because using them carries no real appropriate weight.
Nukes aren’t for it’s for nato
He didn't learn the lesson we all did decades ago about winning a nuclear war. "The only way to win is to never play the game."
Nope. They can use small tactical arms. They have been cautioning about that for 20+ years. But we didn't listen.
No, he didn't "not learn" anything. It was the US making the threats. It was the US that started this war. Putin was merely saying ""we have nukes". Putin was in his own backyard. Washington was using Ukraine for a proxy war. Everything after that is moot and inconsequential.
@@AuroraColoradoUSA There is basically no distinction between tactical and strategic weapons. A device deployed against a purely tactical target will automatically have a strategic effect, contaminating an area. Maybe using a device on the high seas might not outright trigger a strategic exchange, but you demonstrated you willingness to violate the only 'Red Line' that has NEVER been crossed since WWII.
@@AuroraColoradoUSA yes a nukes that are betwen like 5 kt to 100 kt of power in current times bombs like that are considered small the normal ones are 25 mt
so scenario where russia launches 50 kt nuke at kyiv the chances are small but not zero
Just like in the casinos.
Using nuclear weapons is a one way trip. No countries in this world would want to have anything to do Russia after they use it.
it didn't work with USA like that, why you think this time it will different?
@@soberTrezviy it will work differently because the Ukraine war isn’t a global conflict involving every country on earth its a regional war between Ukraine and Russia etc
@@soberTrezviy Nuclear bombing during WW2 was DRASTICALLY different to a regional conflict started by Russia.
@@Xer405 yes, because it was unnessesary, japan army was 1-2 months to defeatentirely, no threat was there for USA. The only purpose was an act of terror to confront USSR.
stop calling it ukraine conflict "regional", both military equipment and troops from all NATO countries are there and even in Kursk region. they work their asses off to provoke nukes, but they are too stupid to understand that nukes will be blown in US an UK, not UA
Plus it was a showcase. It was their first and last actual use.
I think a lot of the fear was calmed by Russia itself. They’ve sabre-rattled constantly, saying “certain things might happen” if ‘x’ line was crossed; first it was political aid, then sanctions, then it was arming Ukraine, then it was sending tanks, cruise missiles, and most recently fighter aircraft.
And every single time it’s come to nothing, because Nuclear Deterrents are mostly a deterrent against other major powers, not the smaller country with nothing to lose and everything to gain.
I think Ukraine has (reasonably) calculated that Russia won’t fire any nukes at the front line or Russian territory, meaning it’s a purely conventional war they have to fight.
good statement
Russia's 159th final warning
They're waiting for GSC to release Stalker 2 before launching the nukes. Russians don't care about getting conscripted and sent to the front, but stalker getting canceled would cause the second russian revolution. The ukranians know it and that's why they keep delaying it, it buys them time.
The source is this roll of paper I found stuck in my crack pipe.
Russia can (and will) use nuclear bombs on its own territory if considered necessary (which it is not, the Ukrainian invasion was pretty tiny compared, say, the Wehrmact. . Russia has a long history of stuff like that, including burning Moscow to the ground to prevent the French army under Napoleon from taking the city.
@@SunriseLAWnukes are different, an entire chunk of the country will become unusable for a long time because of fallout
When you make so many red lines and dont enforce them, you end up in a "Cry Wolf" situation where no one will believe you.
Russia’s last warning
As you also do when you complain about nuclear deterrence. So far, so good?
What sort of twisted logic would lead you to attack someone, anyone, with the argument : "Well, after multiple warnings, he didn't press the red button and didn't send us all back to the Stone Age" ? Thats some reddit tier shitt right here :D Profile checks out too.
Correct
@@kijniklp950 Why is it twisted logic to call the bluff of someone who calls literally everything a “Red Line” yet never reacts?
Putin, after more than 10 days of Kursk catastrophe, summons Stalin’s ghost:
Stalin: “What’s happened?”
Putin: “Nazis are at Kursk! My army is beaten! What should I do?”
Stalin: “Do like me in 1943; Send best Ukrainian troops to the front, and ask the US for arms!”
Well, sh... 💀💀💀
@@OrcHunter-yb4ie So was the USSR a russian empire or a ukrainian one? You cant have your cake and eat it too. Either ukraine is responsible for both atrocities and fighting germany or not
That's awesome, nothing Putin can get.
Ask the US for arms, sure, because the US is never engaged in the wars in Europe directly but always incites them. And somehow ends up benefiting from them tremendously.
Russia stopped Germans at Stalingrad. But Russia was not strong enough to push Germany back over the border. Had there been no US aid to Russia, Eastern Europe and Western Russia would today be speaking German.
It's like an old saying, “A weapon you're unwilling to use is worse than not having one at all.”
Equally there's the saying that Theodore Roosevelt said that everyone forgets the first part of, and makes themselves fools in the process. "Speak softly, and carry a big stick." That first part is important, because vaguely gesturing at the fact you have the big stick is infinitely more effective than shaking it so that the opponent is unsure if you even know how to hit someone with it, and yelling clearly about how you're gonna hit them with it any day now. Keep it vague, and the threat is just nebulous enough that you don't lose credibility if you don't use it, but just present enough that if an opposition was going to cave, they will.
That weapon is useless as your opponent has the same weapons if not more.
@@juicyfruit4378 But it doesn't matter if they never use them.
@@Lobsterwithinternet So the bluff is also useless which makes one wonder why Putin even bothers
@@juicyfruit4378 It’s not for the leadership, it's for the population.
The problem with nukes is that no one can really use them.
That's a good problem for the world to have.
I often say "Any weapon that is as dangerous to you as it is to the enemy, isn't really a weapon."
@@jorrinn1995 Your (single) nuke isn't dangerous to you; it's the other guy's nukes and/or everyone else's rejection of you.
Murder-suicides are in fact: not problem solvers lol
@@jdotoz I could not agree more.
I appreciate that you don't add music to your videos, it gives it the seriousness they deserve and make it less sensationalist.
Yes it’s annoying isn’t it? Serious war and it makes it feel like a film.
It doesn't matter if he adds music or not, his videos are made for people with limited intellectual abilities.
@@codaalive5076
Well said ruskie
I overLaid the song. The Spice Girls Wannabe. Add's a layer of seriousness of not taking things to serious.
If this fool is serious…
What're the odds that at least a few of those nukes have been stripped for vodka money?
50% Either for Vodka money or 50% Amphetamine money
They used Alcohol as a coolant for the MIG 25 avionics and there was a problem with soldiers drinking the coolant supplies
After seeing how their vehicles had been maintained at the start of the invasion I was always thinking, no way have they maintained nukes if they cant maintain trucks. Totally agree with you.
@@igoralmeida9136 When the most Advanced Military in the World with a 1 Trillion Dollar Military Budget has Outdated Tech in its IBCM System.
Imagine the ones that don't have all that Money and Technology.
IMAGINE THE PAKISTANI IBCM SYSTEM
"It's high. It's very high."
The real red line was crossed, when Russia invaded Ukraine.
ruclips.net/video/6G-6UObOwl0/видео.html
Pretty simple issue - you can't resort to nuclear weapons unless you're willing to risk upscaling your conflict 1000x. Right now Russia is embarrassed and frustrated, but under no existential threat. But suppose Russia deployed a single nuke against Kyiv - and the West responded with a single retaliatory strike of its own, say against Kalingrad. That would result in Russia going from having lost a few meaningless villages, to it losing a major city, and having gained essentially nothing for that other than some additional fallout from its strike on Kyiv - and in so doing it would have risked total nuclear Armageddon if the two sides start to escalate further.
In short, Nuclear weapons aren't particularly useful as deterrents against small scale threats or incursions. We didn't throw them around in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq and so on, and this is the reason. A war has to get VERY bad before any side would realistically be willing to consider using them for real.
I don't think nuclear retaliation would be a tit for tat, I'd say it's more likely to see everything launched at once and until exhaustion to ensure the enemy is incapacitated and cannot retaliate. It is what it is.
Russia wouldn't be nuked, but trading + relationships would be 0
@@salted6422Russia would never use it's full arsenal against Ukraine, because that's an incredibly stupid thing to do.
I do think they have enough nukes on paper to glass the country, but if they do that, they have nothing left to defend themselves and at that point, Freedom.exe will invade them, purely for retaliation. At that point, Russia can only sit and watch.
On the other hand, if they only use a few nukes against Ukraine, it most likely won't break them, just make them very, very angry and give everyone else the justification they need to send everything
NATO and the West would not even have to use a nuclear weapon to retaliate. More likely it would use air power.
Ahh but no one suspects the Russian leader who may consider it existential to himself so may think in his deluded way it’s the only way for him to stay leader
Do you know how much it cost to maintain a nuclear stockpile? Billions and billions! And it's hard. You have to have smart people. And have you noticed, Russia hasn't "tested" any nuclear weapons lately? These people didn't maintain the tires on their military vehicles.
Just saying.
Moskva issues. Or Kultneztov.
No one with a developed program has tested nukes in a long time. Russia also spends a lot of money on it's nuclear program, and it's a direct program under Putin's control. It's nothing like corrupt military officers not doing their job. Much like how Putin's personal guard are very well trained, and equipped soldiers.
Lately? The russia hasn't tested a SINGLE nuclear weapon in its entire history! Last Soviet nuclear tests were before russia was made up in late 1991.
My belief is that Russia *did* initiate a nuclear strike against Ukraine, but the missiles failed to launch, either due to lack of maintenance or somebody sold critical components.
@@John_Lyle LOL i like this theory and is my new head cannon.
"Damn, these soldiers cost so much. I can't afford to pay them all when they return. I better make them rush the front lines with sticks and cardboard so they don't come back."
Edit: (For those who are intellectually challenged. This is obviously not a real quote. Thank you and have a good day. :D)
I think thats actually what they are doing, they know they can't pay the 1900000 $ to all soldiers
Who are u quoting
Zerg rush irl
America does the same thing so let's not act high and mighty with the veteran narrative. Most countries fail vets, always have.
Smartest liberal
Thank you for expounding on some of the most important key factors based on the importance of nuclear weapons, and the strategies placed within the confinement of space, and its boundaries where it can, and can not be exhibited, due the advantages and disadvantages; especially with war. I enjoy and support your channel very much! I'd like to see more video clips like this.
I think people nowadays understand the concept of MAD far better than we used to. Given the "improvements" in both yield and delivery systems if it happens most people are dead within half an hour - and they're the lucky ones. So, perversely perhaps, there's no point not treating a nuclear threat as a bluff and among the civilian population not much point in worrying. A "baroque arsenal" indeed. Bear in mind also that higher level military personnel capable of managing such weapons have to be the most intelligent and every soldier, no matter how zealous and dutiful, gets a bit creative when given damn fool orders by a damn fool. I'm not saying it can't and won't happen, just that there isn't one finger on one button.
Nah, MAD was pretty much debunked, nuclear winter is a myth as 1000s of nukes were tested and look, it didn't happen. Anyone who claims that because nuclear missiles and bombs blown up during tests in some desert don't count is lying. They raise as much dust if not more if they were used on cities. It ONLY exists as a doctrine to justify political corruption "look we are buying oil from russia and selling them weapons components not because of kickbacks but because MUH NOOKZ".
Compared to 5-10 years ago - yes certainly. Compared to the Cold War? People then understood it very well.
What does "baroque arsenal" even mean?
@@dubuyajay9964 When something is portrayed as powerful, but is more of a waste of money. It has couple meanings, but baroque had this thing in architecture and arts where you had a lot of (often useless, sometimes tasteless) additions that obscured the main work and made it look so ridiculously opulent, but often with little utility etc.
@@dubuyajay9964 It's title of a book by Mary Kaldor on the subject. Ornate, very expensive and not very useful.
What are the odds Russia's nuclear arsenal is the only thing about their military capacity they've competently maintained and accurately reported?
Zero , it's not just the military, nothing works in Russia , try taking a bus or opening a checking account or buying a PC
Bet you Dimitry sell fuel on the side
@@knyghtryder3599 "try taking a bus or opening a checking account or buying a PC"
soooo as it just happens i have done all of the above in Russia recently...
-buses are frequent, cheap and clean. You can buy the tickets on the bus using any payment you want(cash/card/wireless)...honestly never thought "try taking a bus" was even an issue anywhere.
-opened a checking account using my phone. Is it some sort of a challenge in your country?
-bought a PC online. Assembled to my specs and delivered the very same day.
Very strange set of "nothing works", i'm only left to speculate that these are the issues you ran into yourself in your country.
This is what I tell everyone who's so worried about the Russians pressing the button
If Putin doesn't get outright ignored or mutinied by the people he orders to press the button, the button is gonna get pressed and either nothing happens, or a dead nuke flies out and drops a deactivated warhead in the middle of DC.
@knyghtryder3599 you are stuck in 1998😂
A big issue is if Russia uses atomic weapons in Ukraine they'd be down wind of the fall out 🤔
It’s not as big an issue as one might think. It’s likely they’d start with small weapons, about 1 kiloton (Hiroshima was 12 and Nagasaki 20 kilotons). And airburst them to maximize blast damage which also minimizes fallout because the fireball doesn’t touch the ground. The nuclear attacks in Japan had minimal fallout. The radiation was overwhelmingly “prompt” radiation, which is the instant ‘zap’ when the bomb detonates.
Russia is deterred from using them more so because of a potential NATO response. It’s rumored that the U.S. would reply with two nukes for each one Russia uses. So it’s hard to improve one’s battlefield position with nukes if the other side replies in kind (or with double the response)
The fallout from the Chernobyl disaster reached across Europe as far as northern Scandinavia and Ireland. You just need to wait until the wind is blowing the right way.
You can guarantee, though, if Russia did that, the entirety of Europe and all its allies would treat that as an act of war against Europe. And when they've already got fallout blowing their way from Ukraine, would they even bother to wait for the wind to blow the right way before nuking Moscow?
@@tealkerberus748 Europe wouldn't treat that as an act of war. A NATO country hadn't been directly attacked yet, so NATO wouldn't invoke Article 5.
@@kevinhammond2361 at one point the US government made an oddly specific statement regarding something Putin said or happened at the Kremlin or something. And I remember the interpretation what that the US was sending Putin a message saying that if he did use a nuke, they know exactly where he is.
@@tealkerberus748a reactor meltdown and nuclear bomb are apples and oranges.
The bigger the blast the longer the radiation half life's away in the atmosphere. Dirty bombs are more in line with what you imagine a bomb fallout would look like, and is used as a no man's land deterrent.
The Atomic Dome (or Peace Dome) in Hiroshima is a weird place to visit. One of our guides mentioned one of the reasons the Dome itself survived is because it was sheathed in lead or tin, I don't remember which, but it was vaporized in the blast so structurally, the Dome didn't take that much force.
The museum there is an eerie place. I certainly hope we never see another city bombed by nukes.
10:21 - you didn't mention the key point - the invasion of the Falklands by the Argentinians did not prompt a nuclear response, and nor did the threat of a nuclear response deter the Argentinians. Oddly, what DID have an effect was the Brits demonstrating that they could hit Buenos Aires with conventional weapons (launched by the Vulcan bombers), causing the Argentinians to withdraw forces from the Falklands and focus on home defense. But the fact that there was almost certainly a nuclear-armed submarine within trivial range of the city - no effect at all!
Well it goes against the atempt to paint the pucture of Russia is incompetent and the only nation that is not scarry whit its nukes. When in reallity Nuclear war is almost imposible these days since it might cause self destruction for the won causing it.
OMG. The Falkland "war" was small and quick. Maps in Argentina still show the islands as their territory (they call them the Malvinas.) The Falkland islands had a few hundred British troops. Argentina's military was so weak, if it were not for a lucky shot on the Sheffield, it would not even be a footnote in history.
Argentinia has other things to fix....
@@SunriseLAW You do talk a load of rubbish! Argentina did not expect ANY military response, let alone an invasion and the liberation of the Falklands was an extremely tricky operation. We lost a number of ships sunk and damaged. Had they sunk or damaged one of our carriers, it would have probably been impossible to liberate the Falkland islands.
@@dacorum8053 Spoken like an Argentinian. I had a home in Resistencia in the Chaco province....... ...
Russia nuking its own territory in name of defense sounds crazy, but when you consider that its Russia we are talking about...
The wind is usually from the west, so fallout would just head towards Voronezh and Volgograd, randomly killing 1000s of innocents in southern Russia in a completely unpredictable way.
Russia has always been a country that would burn itself to win a war, Hitler and Napoleon learned that the hard way. If the oil money runs dry and Moscow is under threat, we could see a "Holy Land of Belka".
Russia burned Moscow to the ground to prevent the French from taking it. Then the French army perished in the winter. The Germans met the same fate in much the same way, only that time Moscow itself was spared. Russia has been invaded many times over the centuries. None of the invading armies ever make it out alive and their disaster typically results in a change of government in the invading nation. Napoleon was stripped of power and exiled to an island, Hitler died in his bunker.
Russia's eastern outback is so contaminated with nuclear radiation they look to Western Europe for safe haven, they're not going to nuke their, NO ?.
Not much to think about. Yeah.
he knows that nukes will equal direct confrontation with western militaries and he doesn't want that smoke.
It's not just that. One of Russia's main geopolitical goals is to court the Global South to be on their side. Them using nukes paints them as being no different as the countries that colonized and plundered them in the past.
That's right
Yes, he wants to end the war not to prolong it
@@Toonrick12 As a Global Southian you are right. You lose the moral fight once you use them. The Global South is poor, but not stupid
No. Ukraine is not part of any alliance witn a nuclear power.
You need to replace the uranium in a nuke every 5 years, Russia stopped producing uranium in 2002 and never bought any uranium from any country. And seeing as their aircraft carrier is classified as the worst warship in the world, I do not think that their nukes are maintained any better.
A problem with nuclear weapons is that they will work very well on concentrated troops, cities/population centers, BUT the invading troops are not concentrated in a center, but dispersed along the front lines, so you might take out the 'center' but would hurt your own troops facing the expanding front of your enemy.
Plus nuclear weapons are not really useful in conquest. And as for the Kursk invasion it would be hard to justify nuking your own territory. And nuclear fallout is impossible to contain to a certain area, so it'd force other countries into the conflict.
@@tomybartok99 Hiroshima bombing also caused Nuclear rain on southeast asia which caused a lot of cancerous deaths , that is why during my childhood our teachers always tells us to go inside when there's a rain because it might carry a contaminated radioactive rainwater... Now imagine the worldwide effect with x50 the power.
US military did lots of frontline combat testing with small tactical nukes, even artillery and sending troops in immediately. Turns out, its kinda stupid to try and occupy an area that was just nuked. Also turns out if you use a tactical nuke on an advancing formation, its kinda dumb to push through the nuclear fallout in teh center of the entire enemy line, and now you either have to nuke the entire front, or waste resources fighting a split army with a big ol nuclear zone in the middle. If you nuke the whole front line, welp, now that entire area is uninhabitable .
@@dogsbecute
I find difficult to believe how many people can be so ignorant, this issue attracts them like flies.
It doesn't have to be dropped on the advancing force... Man, some people are so incredibly ignorant.
@@AuroraColoradoUSA Your response is useless, as you have not provided any explanation for your views. All you did was throw a snide insult, so congratulations, you are just like the rest of the ignorant people on the Internet.
Kyiv has had to punch above its weight, and has done so admirably.
It's Kyiv
Correct the spelling of Kyiv please. Thank you
😂😂😂 they losing their territory
@@bogdanafilonich33I'm genuinely not sure why it matters... Is that the official anglicized word? Everyone knows exactly what is being talked about. I guess it helps with morale though using the Ukrainian term like when Mexicans pronounce the "X" as an English "H" to stay independent. I assume the Russian spelling is киев or кейв or something like that? It's not even the same alphabet.
@@monkemode8128 when you say Kiev' you use the Russian way of pronouncing the word. When you say 'Kyiv' you use the Ukrainian ( and official) way of saying the word. Why matters ? Instead of let's say Mexico I will write Meksicko. Do you like it ? How does that feel?
You're a genius explaining about this complex topic being intelligent, well knowledgeable on the subject, hilarious, exploring all possibilities and venues without a laugh or changing your voice's tone. Just wonderful and not boring.
Putin, in wishing to be remembered as Peter The Great
May instead be remembered as Nikolai II:
A man to ruin the Russian state
Putin most like "Ras"putin at this point.... O.O
he does not like Peter the Great he loves Alexander II or I ,
Before Putin Russia was at it worst, inflation over 100% Boris the traitor sold of 70% of all russian assets to USA companies and caused mass unemployment and starvation. When the bar its set below the ground its impossible to be beat it.
why th westerns always hate nikolai 2 despite knowing nothing about his times except for the fucking commies revolution
i dont get it
@@SteamStyle
The reformist Tsars? That’s ironic
It is healthy for a "swedish expert" to learn just one Russian word. The word is BARDAK.
In Russia, no one knows what works or what does not. Will anything at all work after pressing the button.
No, everyone knows , none of their nukes work
I would not want to bet on flipping a coin 1760 times and have it come up heads every time.
@@doctorgeneric8070 it just means that russians cannot be sure that their nukes will be able to leave their territory without blowing up too early..
Since the nuclear material can only deteriorate so fast (Halflife), put a new detonator around and go? To answer your (half)question -- no, afterwards nothing will work.
*I think you mean "when pressing the button"*
@@AND-od5jt plutonium is chemically active and corrode pretty fast. Much much faster in the presence of humidity and hydrogen (which it can punch out of surrounding stuff due to being radioactive). If you're interested in details you may go through references under "Pit_(nuclear_weapon)" wikipedia article.
He’s threatened that so many times, that nuclear threats in general are now meaningless.
He's not threatening, I listen to all his words (he is my president) and he is extremely hesitant of using nukes. That's West's propaganda that Putin is that reckless and will nuke everyone if he has a chance. The only thing Putin said about it (several times) is he is going to nuke everyone if Russia's existence will be under great threat, but it seems to be pretty much impossible (Kursk invasion seems to be annoying for Putin, but nothing more threatening)
It’s surprisingly Russia and not North Korea
@@sticks_studiosHQIt's Russia being supplied by NK now, we live in a bizarro world
Man, move that flag away. My Ukrainian brothers are dying, fighting pointless war for other interests. If Nato really cares about Ukrainian people , they will support Ukraine with troops. This war will cost only Ukraine at the end...
Yes. But Putin enjoys how it feels to say those words out loud to an international audience. What more could a narcissist ask for? It's the ultimate power move. He enjoys that feeling of instilling fear in others. That's all its ever been. Ego talk!
The reason why the nuclear US is not in such danger from Canada and Mexico is because, despite some issues a century or so ago, its because the US learned something that neither Russia nor China ever learned, it's much better [or profitable] to be a friend than a bully.
Of course, it usually means that it's better that neighbors are not ready to attack if you get weaker.
To think that the US gained the suzeranity of its part of the world through "Friendship" & "Peace" is so American.
The USA has managed to secure its borders through the threat of invasion and the implementation of banana republics throughout the Americas in the early 20th century.
Gather round for the story of "The Boy Who Cried Nuke". A little boy named Putin was running a country poorly. One day another country didn't obey him, and he yelled "I'll nuke you! I'll nuke you!" and the other country backed off. Later another country didn't obey his every waking demand, and he shrieked "I'll nuke you! I'll nuke you!". The other country hesitated, pulled back, and discussed with other nations. A third country refused to become his slave. Putin screamed "I'll nuke you! I'll nuke you!" but the country *didn't* obey. Putin, surrounded by countries that would wreck him if he dared try, didn't nuke the country because that would be stupid. He'd already taught everyone to distrust his impotent threats, and now nobody ran away when he shrieked.
Not to mention how you'd have to be literally the dumbest human being alive to use nuclear weapons and risk the end of life. Not only that but you'd have to be really desperate to use nuclear weapons on a country which isn't half as big as yours and is supposed to be 1/8th the military power you are. The fact that they've fallen to nuclear threats shows how abysmal the Russians have done according to not only everyone's expectations but their own expectations. They find more and more excuses and boogeymen to blame for their failures and excruciatingly slow progress and high losses on a daily basis.
Sounds about right. 💯
Where would you hide if nuclear power exchanged?
P. S. Zelensky is also little man, shorter by 3 centimetres than Putin 😉
@@kestasradzevicius8672 your comment seems non-sequitur, like you're a bot
But the Putin story is not yet finished. He might actually yell "wolf" and send the nuke. It is better than being laughed at
Putin's nuclear threats always remind me of a scene in Carlito's Way, when his lawyer pulls his snub nose revolver on someone to feel like a tough guy, Carlito tells him,
"Dave, you are gonna wave that thing at the wrong guy, he's gonna take it from you and bury it up your ass guaranteed."
Similar situation, as in: threats only work to a point, and that point is when the wrong opponent is going to take you to task for talking big but acting small. By the time you realize that they've called your bluff, too late!
Should listen to "Speak softly and carry a big stick"
@@NmaeUnavailablesigh You'll never go wrong with that Teddy quote! 😉🤠
Nuclear weapon usage would not only force China and India to sever ties with Russia, it would also immediately lead to public opinion galvanizing behind a direct intervention in Ukraine.
And a direct intervention in Russia.
They would force nothing if Russia had good reason to use it, and with Kiev gone i doubt NATO would choose to have the same happen to their cities to defend a pile of rubble.
NATO clearly stated that nuclear fallout from deliberate harm to the Zaporizhia power plant would trigger article 5. I can only imagine that a bomb would be the same. If Russia wants to avoid a full scale war with NATO, they better hold their atomic horses.
First part is correct, they would likely lose friends, but nobody is going to do anything to annoy a nation that just employed a nuclear device, just like nobody did anything to the U.S. after the two dropped in Japan. There is nothing that a nation can do against a nation that just used a nuclear weapon on a proxy state. It would be more likely that NATO would eliminate friendly proxy states to Russia in the same manner. If the Russians can nuke proxy states, so could the west, whether morality would justify such on the side of the west as it hasn't invested near the loss the Russians have is another topic.
@@whipivyNATO has already stated numerous times that any use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine will mean a direct NATO involvement in the war.
14:45 - That is a wild-looking setup! Lol, seriously, wtf... 🤯😭💯
Ukrainains made Moscow victorious in previouse centuries. Now when Ukrainains against Mosvovites we see who made Moscow strong superpower
I'm just glad they're the good guys. Maybe we need more former tv comedians in our politics?
@sharonmontag2389 if you can find a western comedian that isn't also a right-wing grifter than yeah that would be great
@@jeffersonclippership2588 colbert?? Meyers? Kimmell?
@@sharonmontag2389 The irony is Colbert was funnier when he was pretending to be a rightwing grifter. RIP Colbert Report.
Hey op, saying that you inadvertantly admit that ukraine was happy being in the USSR because why would ukraine contribute to ussr greatness if it didnt like it?
I can only conclude that Putin has never watched Twins, and thus does not know the Second Rule in a Crisis Situation, "If you chose to bluff, you must be prepared to have your bluff called."
It's the ego, they never expected anyone to even stand up to them in the first place. Just look at old videos of the early days of the invasion. They started believing their own lies. In every somewhat sane country, you can have a negative view on some aspects of it, no place, no nation is perfect. Not so in Russian education and media space. Everything is perfect, Russia never did anything wrong, never failed at anything. They are the best. You tell that to your population for long enough, they start believing it, and then reality hits, like Ukrainians not only stopping them, but pushing them back. It wreaks havoc on the average Russian mind. I've had people totally lose it and laugh maniacally as they described how pathetic NATO is etc. Once they lose, oh boy, that's gonna be a shitshow.
Treaties Russia signed to respect the independence and the borders of Ukraine. For example:
1) The Minsk Agreement (December 1991)
2) The Budapest Memorandum (1994)
3) The Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation (1997)
4) The Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet (1997) - Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea was in violation of this one and of the extension from 2010
In exchange for giving up their nukes, the U.S., the U.K. and Russia would guarantee Ukraine's security in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum. After the Soviet Union collapsed Ukraine was the third largest nuclear power in the world for a short time. Russia attacked a sovereign Ukraine twice. Their words mean nothing.
The US also ensured to Russia that they wouldn't expand NATO eastward. Did they make good on that promise?
@@DecadentVanilla nevertheless, Russia can claim the eastward nato expansion as infringing on their sphere of influence, and can use that (and are using that currently) to justify war. Superpowers need buffer states, no matter how you look at it. Russia does, China does (North Korea, Mongolia, Nepal/Bhutan), and the US does (nearly all of Latin America).
@@TSERJI
No "Superpower" needs buffer states.
That is the old Russian way of thinking, back when Nukes didn't exist.
@@gotohyoshihisa3971 i disagree; during the Cold War especially, the US was scared of expanding Russian influence in Latin America. So guess what we did? When we saw any country that had even hinted at developing relations toward the USSR and away from the US, we either launched a coup and installed a puppet dictator (Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Panama), or full-on invaded the country and then tried to install a puppet dictator (Grenada, Cuba).
Superpowers like buffer states. Even in the presence of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction.
@@DecadentVanilla Russia has a larger GDP than all of Europe except Britain and France. Plus, Europe largely relies on Russian energy to, ya know, survive. So I guess that makes Russia a very influential state. Also known as a “superpower”
Having nukes stops others from using nukes. That's all the deterent i've ever seen out of this invention.
Are Russia's nuclear weapons in any better condition than the rest of their army? When you can't even count on your tanks, do you really want to be standing near by when you activate the doomsday device?
Yes
Irrelevant since the moment russia uses them it gets bombed by France then invaded by China. So the nukes only "work" as long as they aren't used. You can't blackmail someone if you use you cards up. So Westerners hope russia will never use anything so they can pretend to be afraid and keep their corrupt deals. Have you heard Germany wants to arrest the Ukrainian who destroyed the illegal Nordsream pipelines while refusing to punish the criminals who built it? Yup. Still corrupt as always.
Great reference 😅
Lacking very solid intelligence the best assumption is that they do have weapons sufficient to provide deterrence. Realistically, any nuclear arsenal we don't have very thorough knowledge about should be assumed to be dangerous. For that matter, it's probably a good idea to assume that countries we don't know about could have at least a bomb or two. Nukes are eighty-year-old technology, after all.
@@bobbun9630Pretty easy to track the technology required to get there. You can't just show yellowcake into a missile.
There are several reasons nuclear weapons are not useful in this war. First, Ukraine is West of Moscow, St. Petersberg and Rostov on Don. The prevailing winds blow West to East so any nuclear fallout will be blown back into Russia's face contaminating the largest population centers. Second, you can't use tactical weapons on enemy troops that are close to your own troops. Third, I doubt anything could possibly make Russia look weaker than requiring nuclear weapons against such a smaller, non-nuclear enemy. Fourth, none of Russia's "allies" support Russia using any kind of nukes. Fifth, if even one nuclear weapon is fired in anger, the entire world will immediately decide that Putin is too dangerous to continue and he will be targeted with prejudice.
Yeah, Putin doesn't want the USAF in theatre.
@@grandgibbon2071why would usaf be in Russia? Is Russia fighting against West? Or the USA?
@@abhisekhkumar4948 Why would you talk before thinking? Are you being paid? Or just stupid?
@@abhisekhkumar4948 If they use nukes the USA has alreayd said they will destroy russia's forced in Ukraine.
well said!
We need to start calling the United Nations Security Council the UNSC. Sounds way cooler.
And anytime its referenced, it needs to be with the halo them playing in the background.
Funny enough they actually did use the unsc symbol from halo in a brodcast before tho in halo the unsc is the united nations space command
The big 5 sounds better
@@dogsbecute Mjolnir Mix in particular, only the finest in epic themes
Love to see a Halo reference haha
Well Putin didn't use nukes to stop Wagner's Thunder run...
Wagner was a militia is diferent from an outright invasion from a contry being backed by the world largest economy
Difference is where would they nuke if they did with wagner? Their own country? If they bombed ukraine it wouldnt matter wagner was a russion military group
@@Utilizador-gs3lx Militia*
@@Utilizador-gs3lxmilitia
Plausible deniability, like when Iran says "wasn't me", when Houthis sink an innocent ship. This way Russia can deny what Wagner is doing in Africa, they learned they could do this by France's example in Africa.
Look at how poorly russia maintained their conventional weapons of war. What’s the odds they kept their nuclear weapons in full working order?
This is admittedly a tempting argument to make, but it's not necessarily that simple. Russia's strategic rocket forces are essentially an entirely separate branch of the military, just like the US air force is separate to the army. They are smaller than russia's air force and army, but they are, as far as outside observers can tell, extremely well equipped and well funded. And unlike the russian army, air force, and navy, you don't see stories about rampant unchecked corruption being released about the strategic rocket forces every 3 months.
It is entirely possible, likely even, that corruption has diminished the capabilities of the russian nuclear arsenal, but the problem is that it's both enormous and kept very separate from the rest of the military and procurement chain. So it would be much harder for corruption to really set in and destroy stuff like it has for the russian army.
I don't think a nuclear response is even remotely likely for any of a dozen reasons including several in this video, but I don't think we have enough evidence to say that their nuclear arsenal is non-functional.
@@physicsunderstander4958Nuclear commission guys from outside Russia check their nuclear weapon stockpiles often (or used to before the war kicked in, like, every 3 months it was), they are functional and well-maintained. And it makes sense, as long as they have nukes, the only thing they have to worry about is quelling internal turmoil.
The problem is that said plan assumed no one would dare invade Russia and neither that they would invade Russia while being invaded themselves, and also said plan assumed the so-called invaders would be full-on westerners, instead it's just Russians V2. Which is a problem because they never expected to get proxy war'ed by the West and only because rhe Ukrainians refused to give up. It was never part of the plan to supply Ukrainians with guns to fight the Russians, but the Russians ended up asking for that to happen by breaking the Crimea stalemate in such a violent manner.
The whole point is that, Russia only would have won if Kiev surrendered. It didn't, the plan failed.
Considering that the conservative public estimate on Russian nuclear capabilities is that roughly 50% are incapable of either being fired or detonating...
I don't think we have much to worry about
Also consider that most if not all of Russia's ballistic nuclear missile stockpile were built in the soviet era in Ukraine. The uranium mines used to get the nuclear material is in Ukraine. Even if Russia wanted to modernise their missile stockpile to get them all operational they could not replace the warhead cores with fresh Nuclear material as they typically only have a 20 year life span if they compare to US warheads. Also bare in mind the missiles would be liquid fuelled so they need to be raised, fuelled for 15 minutes then launched. Nuclear missiles are far from low tech pieces of equipment and if they can't even keep their navy, army and air force in working order it's unlikely their nukes will work.
@@onehandedtimmy6826 Non-Gov nuclear inspectors have checked RU nuclear capabilities more than once.
They do work, but it's unclear how many could be launched, the load is functional, guaranteed, no idea about the rockets and other delivery methods. That could be the issue, having the load but not the methods to deliver.
Dang! ANOTHER video? You're quick, man! Good job
In the battle of Singapore, Japan lost 1000 soldiers and took 100,000 POWs.
18:30: the main difference between the long term severity of a full blown blow up of a nuclear power plant like chernobyl and a nuclear bomb is that nuclear power stations contain orders of magnitude more radioactive material than nukes, not that "most of the radiation [of a nuclear weapon] goes into the atmosphere and spreads around the world."
Putin's to dumb to realize nukes deter nuke attacks nothing more and since Ukraine does not have nukes or is using nukes the nukes are totally useless to deter a military attack since they are using conventional weapons not nukes it is so sad the old man cannot figure this out💀💀
Slight correction.
It's not the amount of radioactive material, though I do grant you there is more in a reactor and it's casing. It's the half life. The nuclear material used in bombs has a VERY short half life. Meaning, after even a few days it's level of radiation will have halved, potentially multiple times. Add to that most modern nukes are made to be very efficient, using as much of their nuclear material for the explosion, and radiation from a bomb crater is a small term issue.
The fuel used in reactors, on the other hand... has a much slower decay. It doesn't need to release it's energy all at once after all. Meaning it can take months, years, decades, for the level of radioactivity to halve even once.
Another different between Chernobyl and Hiroshima: the little boy bomb contained 64 kg of uranium, Chernobyl's reactor number 4 contained 190 tons of uranium.
From those 64 kg of Uranium, less then a kilo underwent fission.
there would be a lot less uranium left over if it was enriched to weapons grade
There is a big different between enriched weapons grade uranium and commercial grade enrichment levels.
@@DoktrDubyes but theres a bigger on ebetween 190tons of reactor grade and less then 70 kg in weapons grade
@@nikolaideianov5092Reactor grade does not and can't explode
Because Putin already threatened multiple times to use his "nukes" 🤷🏻♀️
Don't issue a threat you're not prepared to carry out.
And he's done so numerous times already, how many "red lines" did Putin set up and then ignored beeing "crossed"?
No one takes his "threats" serious anymore 😂
@@AK-tf3fchahahaha no it’s because your prime minister is not insane also Xi made it clear China would not tolerate the use of nuclear weapons. The problem is the nation that uses a nuclear weapon first will be labeled as a THREAT by ALL nations and then get ganged up on by the other nations. So it’s a case go ahead do it the rest of the world could steamroll you then your only option would be to keep using nuclear weapons or surrender. Also of note Russian culture would be despised going forward after the use.
Putin mistook his strings for lines
@@AK-tf3fckeep living in fantasy land & that’s coming from an American. India is not even remotely close to the reason Ukraine is not ruins, whatever helps you sleep at night tho chief
@@scotthill1600 no one can stop russia usin nukes now india wont even try to stop now after kursk
I agree bee-ings are more dangerous than putins threats. People die from bee stings every day
I actually just saw the number of days since this video was released, actually go up while I was looking. Never seen that before.
People keep under estimating Ukraine - Germany was a similar size to Ukraine in 1941 - military significantly bigger - but they pushed deep into Russia - Ukraine could, theoretically, get quite deep into Russia, but I think this unlikely.
As for the Nuclear option - I do not believe that this is an option for Russia, 99% of their weapons likely do not work based on IAEA reports.
Lastly, to use a nuclear weapon against a non-nuclear country would open a can of worms that Russia would be unlikely to survive - there is no country that would consider such an attack as either justified or tolerable.
Russia would be alone, and given the potential for fallout on NATO states - this could be a red line for NATO that would provoke a military response.
Not even close, when WW2 started Germany had a population of around 70 million people, that's more than double the population of Ukraine.
@@sanher20 Yep, you are right, I must have had WWI population in my head - in June 1939 a census showed Germany had a pop of 79.4 million - thanks for pointing it out 👍👍
it was during ww2 where combat was very different which is why germans got so far
When does IAEA say that 99% of their weapones dont work? Wtf
@@ThomasZukovic The IAEA conducted a report in the early 1990s as Russia was decommissioning some of their tactical nukes - they found that their active weapons were lacking working parts for launch, lacking nuclear materials, control circuits ineffective die to damage/corrosion, launch vehicles poorly maintained and unable to launch weapons. It was a litany of state failure - given that Russia has failed to maintain its nuclear naval vessels due to cost, corruption and negligence - I doubt their nuclear weapons are in an improved state to what the IAEA found some 30 years ago.
"we are no different from the ants..."
You reminded me of that scene.
It still terrifies me years later.
"No, we are far worse"
So far, we aren't.
You forgot to mention that British nukes didn't deter Argentina. Although it wasn't a major war I guess.
To be fair.... the Argentina's goverment didn't (for like, not even in the least possibility) counted that the UK would do ANYTHING at all. They were 9999% completely sure that the UK would make some statement at the U.N. and then Argentina would have to pay some compensation and that would be everything, problem solved, and the islands would remain to Argentina and the military junta would be acclaimed forever to be heroes.... They didn't think (AT ALL) that the UK would send a single fish boat to the Falklands.... not to mention any military ship and not not not to mention an "invasion" force to recover the islands. So, it's not that the nukes didn't deter Argentina.... the mere posibility of a war wasn't even taken into consideration.
Nukes ain’t designed for that purpose.
The Falklands wasn't an existential threat to the United Kingdom. It's not really the same situation because no one ever claimed that if the British lost it would threaten their very existence, which is what Putin is claiming in his justification for his threats.
UK didn't nsed nukes.
@@ubiergo1978falklands are British
If you all agree to ban nuclear weapons, but there’s a small group of people who refuse to get rid of theirs. Then the only way to defend yourself is to keep the nuclear weapons just in case. No matter how hypocritical it may be. To defeat evil, you have to break the rules, otherwise the cheater will always win.
Yep, and thats precisely why nukes are here to stay
Russias nuclear armament has never even been seen, which makes me think they lying all together about the amount.
ore in such a bad shape the got to rebuilt them i like to think the got a few show models and the rest are stored and forgoten
From what I gather I would bet they have nothing usable that wouldn't pose a major threat to themselves first. It is very high maintenance technology, and we've seen how well that works over decades of Russian corruption.
Not true. The nuclear S.T.A.R.T. treaties have American inspectors sent to all known russian nuclear sites to do assessments, while it also allows the Russians the same access. Their nukes have been seen by many american inspectors. But thats just it. Theyve been seen. Obviously they cant open them up. We also have treaties that allow both sides to do fly-overs on their territory, which is a fascinating treaty thats a relic of its time but is still in effect.
@@dogsbecute not true, russia has always had problems complying. Its been up in the air well before his 3 day war. He was always trying to avoid showing them.
@@bobthekobb
I do like this thought, we believed they where obfuscating higher numbers.
When it really was out of shame that the numbers had fallen so low....
Isen't there a saying that goes "don't point a loaded gun unless you are prepared to use it"...
Thats just a gun safety rule.
@@reetusbeetus Nukes are just bigger guns /s
We can't allow the threat of nuclear weapons to keep us from defending ourselves. And neither can Ukraine.
Amen
okay, warhawk. Russia isn't attacking us, so there's no need for us to attack Russia -- they're only attacking Ukraine. And if you're willing to risk WW3 all for the sake of acting tought against big boy Vlad, then you really are an evil person
Excellent evaluation of the many crucial dynamics at play, just under the surface (no pun intended). 😳
I personally do not think Russia's nukes work. Look at the condition of their other, simpler equipment. Also, isn't it true that maintenance of nuclear weapons is both expensive and requires high-level expertise? If so, Russia's society-wide corruption knocks out the likelihood that funds would actually be applied to maintenance, and Russia's post-Soviet culture of passivity and poor education removes the likelihood of available experise.
Exactly
This sounds plausible but unfortunately we can't be sure...
Not necessarily. Perhaps the reason for the degradation of the older military equipment is because Russia is putting their budget into their nuclear arsenal.
@@millerrepin4452 or you know? In their own pockets.
@@millerrepin4452no. Other prestige objects (navy) are suffering degradation as well.
Because it's all threats, half measures. Strelkov (Girkin) saw it coming, said it and was sent to the gulag for speaking out loud
The other thing that I haven't seen mentioned is that a man who owns 30 palaces isn't going to trade that for spending the rest of his life underground in a concrete bunker.
When talking about Bucha, please remember that there are numerous Ukrainian cities levelled or damaged by russians with their inhabitants murdered or injured. Mariupol, Kharkiv, Severodonetsk, Vuhledar, Avdiivka - all these cities are historically russian speaking and were once loyal to russia.
For two years you have not shown any evidence that it was the Russian army that killed people in Bucha or that there were any killed people there at all.
Russia flattening ethnic Russian cities in Ukraine like Mariupol or Bakhmut makes as much sense as France invading Switzerland "to defend" the French Swiss minority and then razing Lausanne and Geneva to the ground...
Ukraine loyal to Russia? I am sure some were, but very few. Yea, a lot speak Russian especially in places like Kharkiv but that doesn't equal to 1% loyalty. It's just habit.
@@mtpstv94 you have yet a lot to discover about rissian propaganda and it's impact on our people
@@hamletodua I lived in Ukraine pal.
Great analysis! Thank you!
If you Ukraine had nukes Russia may not have started anything in the donbass or crimea or obviously may not have started this recent full-scale war.
If Russia had done those things anyway Ukraine could use its nukes to leverage more support from its allies.
"We are facing an existential threat. we'll have to use nuclear weapons unless you help us win this war quickly"
The starry road to success . . .
But ukraine gave all his nukes away to russia in order to get the kremlin ground and they would never start a war. It's written down on paper. Russia has broken it. Ukraine no more nukes, kremlin gone and now in war.
That would have meant the old Russia-friendly government from before 2014 would have been nuclear-armed.
Like imagine Belarus today but with their own nuclear capacity.
@@SusCalvin
True. Hard to imagine what might have happened before Maidan.
@@SusCalvin I wouldn't be so surprised if Ukraine has launched or is going to launch a nuclear program because of this war.... it'll be interesting to see, for sure!
Just found your channel for Ted Lasso. I’m subbed up for the journey. This is a great show.
Using Nukes that close to your own border would not be wise. Not to mention upset you 2 largest friends India and China.
Assuming Russia even has such devices anymore given the test ban permitted them to bow out from squandering the little money they had on such technologies, the modern devices are clean. Hiroshima was rebuilt and populated within two years.
they have tactical nukes, and the long range ones would be for bigger conflicts. yes it's a good thing Chinese and Indian leaders are reminding Putin not to start, at least someone over there is trying to do the right thing. i think they will probably use the tactical nukes before the war is over but probably not on their own territory
@@ivanjakanov lol in reality there are no Tactical nukes. they still make a mess of things. Fallout is a b!t(t.
Keep in mind it has been proven that 75% of Russia's nuclear weapons do not work at all.
With it being highly suspected that less than 10% of Russia's total nuclear arms are functional (Given that this info is from nuclear arms investigators in the late 2000's, this number might be lower).
Also keep in mind how well they maintain their equipment the number of functional nuclear arms maybe even lower.
They don't have enough money to give everyone plate carriers but they have the money to maintain all their missiles.
Press X to doubt.
Why do you think Russian army is in a mess, all its money went on nukes. 🙄
@@DrumToTheBassWoop or yachts.
Yeah, probably the yachts.
It is very easy and cheap to test the level of gas in a tank; I suspect more difficult verification processes suffer even more shortfalls.
@@DrumToTheBassWoop no, actually all those money that should have been spent to military, should have been spent at nukes too. But those money just disappeared
@@DrumToTheBassWoop All the money was stolen by stripping anything valuable and selling it. It wasn't all sent to nukes, I can assure you of that.
I've said countless times even before 2022 that all the Nuclear talk is just bravado.
It is all bravado until someone presses the Red Button.
Also, Putin is restricted by the fact he actually want to capture Ukraine. Turning it into a nuclear wasteland wouldn't help.
okay, and who the hell are you? you're not in the UN or anywhere near where decisions are made and people's lives are at stake.
I think so too. If nukes start flying it's the end of the world
@@humanharddrive1 Now turn your question on yourself. See?
@@humanharddrive1 but he's still right and almost everyone with an inkling of understanding of international security agreed. Using nuclear weapons is a taboo that would rid Russia immediately if its rather flimsy allies china and India. It'd also completely change US and European stances on various questions from use of long range weapons to deployment of NATO troops.
🇺🇸🗽 📢Slava Ukraine.
🫂Hugs and much love from Indiana, USA🙏‼ 🕊️Stay strong, stand proud and ✝️Keep the faith.
🤷♀️Believe in your people and Leader in this time.⏰
💁 For your 🫡President did not abandon you, do not abandon him 👀👏✅
🗽"GIve me Liberty
and freedom🔔 or give me death" 🦅
🕊️🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇦🇺🇦🕊️ 🌻 💙💛
That’s a lot of emoji’s
President of Ukraine is corrupt and moronic. Ukranians fight for country and people
10:10 I don't think Mexico ever seriously considered the Zimmerman Telegram offer. They were certainly curious about why Germany would think this was a feasible idea, since German intelligence had a good reputation at the time, so Mexico did look into whether what the Germans were proposing was even possible, and after reviewing the capabilities of the U.S. they concluded the German intelligence capabilities must be overrated, which was useful to know for its own sake. That was about it though.
Nukes require uninterrupted maintenance. They are very delicate. It's a ton of money with no income payoff. So they will skimp if they are not neglecting entirely.
Test ban permitted them to bow out gracefully not only from establishing a purported arsenal, but even the expense of demonstration and verification through physical tests. They likely have none and instead they have been involved in counter intelligence and probably a collaboration with the west to convince everyone they do. That would be useful to both sides, except in the instance of Ukraine where U.S. intelligence would probably inform Ukrainian defense that they could in fact proceed without concern.
Its not as hard as you make it to be i mean even india does maintain its nukes and india has gdp per capita of albania
@@ThomasZukovic india can't afford to not maintain it.
It's Mr Spaniel YEY!!!
I feel like the title kinda implies that Russia used their nukes in an attempt to stop the invasion😅. Imagine how terrifying that would have been.
Yeah, I was reading an article about how the cities in Japan was only evacuated for a month to two and I was trying to figure out how come the power plant melt down lasts centuries, and it all has to do with the ice tobs, I can't spell, but when a bomb is detonated in the Air, there is less fall out from dust that is shot into the air because the force pushes down minimizing the dust the long lasting icetubes can stick to, which decay really fast in the atmosphere. The melt down was at ground level so the long lasting ice tubes was able to fuse with the ground and dust allowing for a larger fail out area because it exploded outwards up and to the sides in all directions, where the wind carried that radiated debris and dust and dirt back towards the plant and town and eastward, before failing back down.
isotopes?
"Uno reverse card:" perfect description! Thank you for your continued intelligent coverage of this terrible war. 🎉
So by not reading your books I am crossing a red line but by reading your books I am crossing a "read" line?
The pun is funnier out loud.
So does this mean that NATO can get directly involved in liberating Ukraine without the fear of nuclear retaliation, provided that the alliance acts only within occupied Ukraine and Russia's border regions?
Hypothetically yes. Wars have a tendency to spiral out of control and the benefit of liberating Ukraine isn't worth the cost of war with Russia.
No. Mostly because it's far more safe and effective doing a Lend-Lease with NATO supplies than boots on the ground. Ukraine isnt part of NATO (At least right now, they would definitely try to get in once the war ends) so I doubt any member state would want to sacrifice any of their troops to help a country that isn't in their club.
Not "without," no. It's tough to predict what someone will do with his back to the wall, and an overwhelming defeat even outside of Russia may put Putin there. But it probably does reduce the probability of such a response.
Not just border regions, all way to moscow, this is a precedent that russia won't use nukes period, and anyone denying that is delusional acting in bad faith. As to "Ukraine not being in NATO" WTF, this didn't stop UKRAINIAN FORCES FROM FIGHTING IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN. Westerners are very hypocritical if they think we should fight for them while refusing to fight with us. Only thing that explains that is extreme corruption in the West.
lmao no, it does not mean that, but youre free to take the info provided out of context for sure.
9:45 You say “Wall all along the boarders.” But I hear “walllallala boarders” 😂
We should listen to Budanov... Deeper and deeper😂
Stop It! Im a nuclear Power!
Deepa n Deepa
Thats what she said!!!
Turns out mother Russia is actually a MILF
Help me step- governor.
18:40
I suggest an edit here on the difference between an airburst nuclear bomb and a nuclear meltdown.
Nuclear meltdowns are very problematic not because they stick radiation into the ground (nukes do that too, and meltdowns also release massive amounts of radioactive dust into the atmosphere), but because of the massive amounts of nuclear material involved. A nuke may have at most a ton of nuclear material, a nuclear plant will have ten to a hundred times more than that. This amounts to a much greater amount of fallout, which is the main problem.
This is... wrong. Commercial nuclear fuel is low-enrichment. Most of the nuclear waste, like, 90+% of it is in fact, things like rubber gloves and metal cages which are only waste if they cannot be recycled into other nuclear work. The radio-hazard of these materials is low, but present.
Assuming that the nuclear facility does not maintain spent rods on site. In which case the issue is that there are spent rods on site whose containment (usually a pool of water) may be breached. If those pools of water remain in tact then everything is fine.
My guess would be because their weapons are fueled with water, their silos are rusted shut or he lost the launch codes. Select your own version of corruption or incompetence.
Who else thinks that *William Spaniel* and *Andres Puck Nielsen* are like the _vitamins_ and _minerals_ of information about the war in Ukraine? Who else follows and appreciates both almost equally _(with a slight preference for one or similar appreciation for both)?_ ❤❤❤❤
Keep up the pressure, Ukraine. Real Americans support you.
USA created this war
@@Micray55oh yes, just look at the US military invading Ukraine right now….
@nobodyherepal3292 USA just throws gas at the fire by funding it.
Look forward to your videos!!!
Why was Russia magically given the Soviet Union's seat on the security council? Why not any one of the other former Soviets or, better yet, none at all?
Why? Nukes.
Because the concept of successor states is an accepted part of international relations.
Because it automatically inherited the geopolitical position of the Soviet Union.
Because the Russian SFSR was by FAR the largest and most populous Republic within the Soviet Union. They were the economic and political leader of the whole thing by all intend and purposes. Plus, I can imagine that none of the other Republics would have had a fun time inheriting the debt of a country ten times it's size, y'know? Instead, Russia had to deal with that. They got all of the benefits, but also all the issues that came with being the official successor
Wow, some knowledge!! Thanks.
1 thing about nuclear weapons today is that they're not nearly as radioactive as the fission bomb. Fusion bombs (hydrogen), make radioactive fallout a limiting factor
They use fission to start the fusion!
Air bursts have limited fallout unless 'dirty' shells are added. Ground detonations create fallout and cobalt or other materials can be added to make extra fallout on purpose.
Didn’t watch the video yet but I know the answer…. China! Also Russias hope to one day return to the open world economy!
Exactly. Being a regional power in the sphere of influence of a greater power isn't really as funny to the russians as back when the THEY where the greater power. Their Beijing masters would never allow the use of such weapons.
They dont hope to return, they hope we (continue) f*ing ourselves over long and serious engouh that we have to come begging for help
China is a huge part of the world economy already. Russia, not so much.
@@J_X999 I more meant it separately. Two reason, one was China and secondly was Russias hope to return to the world economy. My bad for the subpar English!
@@J_X999 fixed it!
If Russia has 5580 nuclear bombs but only 3 work, how many nuclear bombs does Russia have?
✌️☝️🥳
3 nukes and 5577 landmines
only 3, seems other ones were shop in Walmart 😁😏
Are you writing this because you're stupid? Or do you want to comfort yourself..?
18:44 About the difference between nuclear meltdowns (specifically Chornobyl) vs. nuclear bombs - nuclear bombs have their nuclear reactions happen really, really quick because otherwise it just fizzles out. Nuclear reactors have comparatively much slower nuclear reactions because you want to produce electricity, not destroy everything. But because they're really different it means they generate different kind of isotopes or at least produce them in different quantities.
i know i will be annoying but there were a lot of factors for the surrender of japan, one of the most signficant ones was the entry of the USSR into the conflict, afterall during ww2 japan and the USSR werent at war technically, since the USSR and Japan formed a non agression treaty over their border disputed in mongolia, so after the entry of the USSR, it showed the japanese leadership that the soviet union would not act as a third party and they wouldnt have a chance for conditional surrender