Calling Russia's nuclear bluff - Russian nuclear doctrine & the Ukraine war

[@KingsandGenerals]

For me, the stark number was the amount Russia and the US spend on the maintenance of their nuclear arsenals. Apparently, the US spends something like 50 billion, while Russia spends 5 billion. Granted, Russia can probably do most things cheaper than the US. I don't want to sound conspiratorial, since we don't have much info on that, but I am curious how well-maintained the Russian arsenal is.

[@beetlejuus]

It's dogshit.

[@morisan42]

Yeah there's always the PPP argument in resource rich countries like Russia, but I'm not sure that it accounts for a 10x difference in upkeep.. I would be surprised if Russia didn't have enough nukes to wipe out at least Europe but there's a good chance they've inflated their number of (operational) nukes quite considerably

[@DahVoozel]

An unknown I would rather not test, but an unknown Putin is probably looking into furiously.

[@ooloncolluphid360]

I wonder if they are so keen to raise the moscow because they have less than they admit and might have lost a decent chunk of them overboard

[@Win32error854]

Good chance that's true, but the common consensus in Europe at least is that they'll have enough functioning nukes to effectively pose the same threat as if they had 100% of their claimed amount operational. And nobody really wants to find out either.

[@nonsquarepixels]

“The economy does better when everyone is not dead”[citation needed]

[@SuperCatacata]

Can't go in the red if dead. :)

[@MrDanisve]

Omg i almost died laughing at that point.

[@tangentreverent4821]

Citation not needed

[@martinoamello3017]

Sometimes I wonder if human life on this planet just might be the existential threat to this planet. We certainly don't have a lot of house cats or even mean dogs threatening us all..

[@tangentreverent4821]

@@martinoamello3017 define existential. If we humans do kill each other. Life on earth will continue.

[@zsfekete5211]

"Australia probably would've benefiterd from a nuclear weapons program to counter some of the greater and more threatening examples of our wildlife, the reality is that we never erally went down that road". 10/10

[@glenshumate9260]

This is why they lost the Emu war.

[@JustAnotherAccount8]

@@glenshumate9260 Emu's are the bird equivalent of cockroaches. No weapon works against them

[@builder_dahomey]

The uk tested some of their nukes in outback australia.

[@zsfekete5211]

@@JustAnotherAccount8 "If we had a military division with the bullet-carrying capacity of these birds it would face any army in the world... They can face machine guns with the invulnerability of tanks. They are like Zulus whom even dum-dum bullets could not stop." Actual quote from an Australian millitary officer (Major C. W. P. Meredith)

[@basedeltazero714]

The Final Emu War.

[@apoth90]

"They'd have to be stupid to launch nukes" They'd also must have been stupid to invade Ukraine. In the mud season. After letting them militarize for 8 years.

[@treeman5274]

They were giving peace a chance. It didn't work

[@jskratnyarlathotep8411]

@@treeman5274 they weren't as they've started and fueled that conflict in the first place

[@danielkiran8174]

@@treeman5274 "Giving peace a chance" by funding and controlling separatists? GTFO, armchair politican. It was obvious for everybody that Crimea was only the beginning.

[@treeman5274]

@@jskratnyarlathotep8411 I think it's not so simple. The US had been trying to destroy Russia for decades, fomented a coup in Ukraine in 2014, there has been a civil war ever since and after 8 years of waiting for the Minsk agreements to be fulfilled by Ukraine, who in the meanwhile was being armed to the teeth by the west, Russia lost patience, and took matters in their own hands. Geopolitics. Move and countermove. They've got this one.

[@treeman5274]

@@Letsberealish there have been many reports from western news outlets on Ukrainian Nazis for years now, BBC newsnight comes to mind, look that up, Ukraine On Fire is another, it is real

[@FreddyRangel85]

Only Perun could have made us excited for a PowerPoint presentation 👍

[@Cotictimmy]

In an internet ocean of drivel, finding calm rational analysis is exciting. ✅🤣

[@mandranmagelan9430]

lol

[@Haan22]

Being boyishly excited over slides, I have a weird inner child it seems.

[@chrishieke1261]

He definately deserves my subscription. Measured, clear, level-headed and good research. And not preachy. ;)

[@aristideswade2046]

@@chrishieke1261 and I hope a few $, be it American, Canadian, Singaporean, or other denominations. First video and I added to his Patreon.

[@kaseyfreudenstein4970]

Perun's history: 1945: Hiroshima and Nagisaki nuked 1946: Russia builds nuclear arsenal 1947: in a final stand against the Emus and giant spiders, Australia sends a final goodbye to the nations of the world and declares itself radioactive hellish wasteland...then nukes itself.

[@Guplk]

Fallout Australia

[@nishanisho]

Whoa whoa whoa, do you want Australia to lose ANOTHER war to the Emus???

[@theleva7]

@@Guplk Replace deathclaws with wombats the size of a bear, supermutamts with carnivore emus and kangaroos, sprinkle some kookaburras where bloatflies would be, add koalas falling on your head from the trees above (dropbears ftw), crocodiles can remain unchanged. Who would the BoS equivalent be though? Order of Steve Irwin?

[@richmcgee434]

Leaving the rest of the world to deal with the coming plague of radioactive drop bears. :)

[@SuperCatacata]

@@theleva7 TY for the nightmares tonight bruv.

[@AnimarchyHistory]

Beat me to the Punch Perun, was thinking of covering the Nuclear War angle. Outstanding as always mate.

[@PerunAU]

Cheers! Clearly we need to get EE and Hypo into a discord at some point and get these releases planned better. What are people going to think if the Aussies don't have their topics perfectly synched up? And It'd be great to hear your perspective if you were going to do the topic anyway - I was thinking about revisiting lend-lease 2022 once it's signed into law (albeit from more of a mechanical/legal perspective) and you did a great job of covering that already.

[@AnimarchyHistory]

It'd be great actually to have a chat! Our national pride is at stake XD What I am itching to talk about is the air war, but both sides are naturally rather cagey about information so I have been scraping around and theorising. So many projects to work on so little time.

[@guamsoncruz5107]

Would still love that video animarchy

[@Haan22]

Collab when?

[@silentdrew7636]

@@AnimarchyHistory cover it too anyway.

[@kennethferland5579]

I think the Russian's are starting to tone down their nuclear saber rattling as they are realizing that it is 1) Did not or atleast is no longer disuading the Wests arms shipments and 2) It is actually making their conventional forces look weaker as they are admitting that their conventional forces are not up to the job.

[@jrd33]

Hmm, Russian TV hosts have been talking about wiping out the UK with nuclear weapons, and how Russia is being "forced" into this by NATO.

[@dirtyaznstyle4156]

The haven’t rattled that saber in a long time. They haven’t used nuclear weapons to dissuade arms shipments. Take into account under what conditions they even mention their use. The US intelligence, the CIA, they can’t have misjudged Russian strength. If their conventional forces were over hyped they were the ones doing it.

[@jamesrowlands8971]

You are deluded by Western Prop.

[@TheInfamousMrFox]

@@dirtyaznstyle4156 You're joking right? They rattle that sabre virtually every day! Every single time a new western weapon starts slaughtering orks, they start whining that "the world is headed for nuclear war!"

[@matthewyabsley]

They've not been sabre rattling, they've been signing to the choir. Very different. Russia is a mafia state authoritarian regime. It needs a bogeyman (in this case USA and Nato). Any mention of nuclear has always been in context with propaganda at home.

[@jermania766]

Russian officials giving a whole new meaning to "tactical n-word"

[@Barwasser]

*DON'T PRESS THE BUTTON!* "are you talking about the possible start of ww3?" "kinda..."

[@ericmckinley7985]

They're gamers.

[@DogeickBateman]

@@ericmckinley7985 Putin be reading too much TNO.

[@manofcultura]

MRS. OBAMA! Get down!

[@DogeickBateman]

@@manofcultura Putin:

[@rahulshah1408]

The internet is amazing. From cats and dogs living together to the second phd level analysis on war from a primarily gaming channel. Thank you for the excellent content.

[@GhostlyJorg]

cats and dogs living together is unrealistic

[@ecaesar614]

If they are raised from puppy and kitten together, they can and will live together.

[@rahulshah1408]

@@GhostlyJorg especially in Ghostbusters.

[@anarchyorslavery1616]

if you think this is phd level political content you need to have your head checked, seriously

[@paullakowski2509]

@@anarchyorslavery1616 careful mate , them's fighting words for an aussi .

[@fraserbuchanan1083]

Would love to see a PowerPoint presentation from Perun on "Why Australia should have adopted a nuclear program for use against its own wildlife"

[@jamescastle7704]

seconded

[@talltroll7092]

... but what if the drop bears captured one, and reverse engineered the technology? There would be nowhere safe in the world, let alone Australia

[@bananian]

Emu war 2?

[@1Maklak]

The Emu war is even funnier if you know how the Aussies won. Their army was attacking air, like the Russians did in Ukraine, and the Emu's were waging a guerilla war and retreating from any overwhelming force. So the Australians used fences and barbed wire to divide the land and clear the pockets, like the British did in the Boer War in South Africa.

[@schumzy]

Hopefully he does it as an April Fools next year.

[@traumateaminternational4732]

"A reverse clickbait video." This sir, is why I love this channel so much.

[@michaireneuszjakubowski5289]

"I've simplified some things out of necessity, because we don't want to be here all day." Well I for one wouldn't really mind! Great material as always, I hope the release is a sign of your recovery.

[@pax6833]

tfw someone says 'I've simplified things' and the video is still almost an hour long lol

[@Eric149162536]

Almost all of the analysis is excellent *except for the part of other historical comparisons at* 12:00, where Perun's lack of historical knowledge/research of those conflicts shows. Many of the examples cited reflect a poor understanding of those conflicts and situation. Some strange examples are picked and where they are used are partially or largely incorrect. *China and Vietnam* - Using this as an example of nuclear coercion failing is wrong because nuclear coercion was not used in the first place. The war was always meant to be a highly limited war, with no intention of conquering any part of Vietnam. This was in fact outright promised by China to the USSR (and the US) and in exchange the USSR would not enter into the war as Vietnam's ally. As a result of this limitation even the Air Force and Navy were ordered to mostly not participate, let alone nuclear weapons. The relatively low importance of the conflict to China and the explicit no-first-use policy of China meant that nuclear coercion was never on the table. *Nuclear Monopoly* - It is a common misconception that the time of greatest US nuclear advantage was right after 1945 when only the US had atomic bombs, and therefore possessed some magical ability to immediately order everyone in the world around or face atomic destruction. In fact, nuclear bombing was still secondary to conventional bombing in 1945. Nuclear bombs were both much smaller in quantity and in yield (fusion bombs not yet invented), thus they did not become the core of strategic bombing until the mid-50s. Compared to the 8000-megaton SIOP-62 plan, the US arsenal in 1946 amounted to less than a single megaton - and they were deployed on far inferior platforms (planes) with lower range, survivability and accuracy. The 1946 arsenal would have struggled to destroy even 1% of the USSR. "Wiping out a gigantic country from the map" was not a thing for nuclear arsenals in 1945-1949. Nuclear weapons in themselves could only form a limited part of the full spectrum of military deterrence. In fact, the very phrase "massive retaliation" was only uttered by Eisenhower in 1954. This reflects the reality that "nation-destroying" nuclear bombing power only started emerging as a possibility around this time. *India and Pakistan* - This argument is even weirder. The idea that India could somehow use its nuclear weapons to destroy Pakistan just because it got the nukes first is extremely wrong. Just because India got nukes before Pakistan doesn't mean it had a monopoly. Pakistan was allied with the United States, the country with the most nuclear weapons in the world. Even if India was ruled by a warmonger, its ability to conduct any nuclear invasion of Pakistan would have been hampered by this alliance. India did *not* have any nuclear advantage over the US and therefore it is silly to to speak of Indian restraint in not nuking Pakistan as if India had any advantage in that conflict to begin with. All in all a good analysis for Russia and Ukraine but when Perun doesn't have the knowledge or research on the other parts of Asian history it shows.

[@michaireneuszjakubowski5289]

@@Eric149162536 Seems like sound criticism (though I'm rather ignorant on Asian history myself, I'll admit that freely). Still, I think you'd do better to levy it at Perun directly, rather than bury it here in the comments by answering me.

[@michaireneuszjakubowski5289]

@@pax6833 It *is* simplified - well, imagine delving into all the theoretical background, the minutia of different doctrines, historical precedents, logistical basis of all that, knock-on effects... He's not lying, we WOULD be here all day.

[@shinyary2]

@@michaireneuszjakubowski5289 I agree; I would love to see Perun's response to this constructive criticism, and he's more likely to see it if it's posted as a direct comment instead of buried in a reply.

[@soorian6493]

Another note to be made on the 'specialness' of nuclear weapons is that, unlike almost all conventional options, retaliation will likely immediately attack command and control. Given that leadership is standing in command and control, that's a much larger risk for a politician or a general to stomach than sending some teenagers off to die and seeing their poll numbers go down 8%.

[@Jordan-Ramses]

The dangers of radiation are greatly exaggerated in the media and fiction. I wrote a long explanation. But let me just say this instead. Most of the people who were inside the Chernobyl nuclear power plant when it melted down were not killed by it. Is radiation dangerous? Yes. Would a lot of people die in a nuclear war? Yes. Could it wipe out humanity? No.

[@fredi1356]

💯

[@ethank5059]

And even if you “win” a nuclear war the question then becomes “what comes next?” Being the king of a ruined country and a radioactive wasteland is not ideal even if your primary enemy is dead.

[@thekinginyellow1744]

If you're going to launch a nuclear strike, I don't think you're going to hang out in any of your published C&C locations to wait for the reaction of your fanbase.

[@kennethferland5579]

Excellent point, Nuclear war is the only type of war in which the leadership will be the first to die.

[@live_free_or_perish]

This piece completes the analysis. This comprehensive series of videos is the best deep dive into almost every aspect of the war is the best I've seen anywhere.

[@IRISHMAN555]

It definitely is

[@NightOwlinNewOrleans]

I agree. I share with anyone who will listen.

[@FelixMeister]

You may like the series "Understanding the War in Ukraine". kzbin.info/aero/PL9zL6xEwtVujfHHif6MyfIFxP_G44sfAG It's by Pr Alexander Stubb and ex-Finnish prime minister.

[@kyarimaresuki]

This is the sort of content that I like best--people just talking over slideshows for more than 10 minutes vs fancy cameras, "KZbin personalities", overly edited edutainment. You actually make valuable content. Thank you, and congratulations on your well-deserved trophy thing!

[@KptLehmann100]

Good work, Perun. Thank you.... from an American 1980's & 90's Cold War soldier. (Fun fact: I still have my old NBC Radiac nuclear yield calculator wheel. Back my Army days, it would allow us to calculate yield and radiation dose based on the height and width of the mushroom cloud, and other factors such as air or ground burst etc. We could then calculate our expected duration of combat effectiveness based on that dosage. Good times. Good times. :o)

[@neolexiousneolexian6079]

Let us die young or let us live forever. Turning golden faces toward the sun. Praising our leaders, we're getting in tune. The music's played by the mad man. Hoping for the best but expecting the worst. Are you gonna drop the bomb or not ?

[@TheRealJasonson]

These videos are absolutely top tier - I really appreciate having solid, credible, well thought out videos that try to avoid arguing based on opinion, and rather try to stick to arguments based solely in fact.

[@enhancedutility266]

It is I'm glad the algorithm was able to show me his content

[@MarxAlex]

I think he misses the human element precisely because it becomes a scientific accounting exercise. With the current situation rationality and scientific strategies may work up to a point but the wild card is how the other side perceives these actions. In ww2 Japan attacked pearl harbour over oil sanctions, this dwarfs that. USA has openly said they want to degrade the Russian military and have all but indicated they want regime change. I think culturally westerners misunderstand the minds of the Russian leadership.

[@crhu319]

No they're kiddie gamer stuff. But fun. You want actual stuff watch Scott Ritter or Defense Politics Asia.

[@kotorfanatic3897]

The lightbulb finally went on for me during this video. Russian nuclear statements and actions have been very carefully calibrated and are highly logical. Scaring the crap out of Ukrainians and the citizens of NATO countries = WIN. Scaring the decision-makers who control US/UK/FR nuclear arsenals = LOSE. While those decision-makers are also some of the most important decision-makers when it comes to making decisions about aid to Ukraine and sanctions, they are all also highly vulnerable to pressure from their own citizens and from the leaders of non-nuclear allies. Thus, the winning Russian strategy is to rattle that nuclear sabre hard, while at the same time making sure that the truly well-informed (the leaders of the Western nuclear powers) *know* they are bluffing.

[@loganwalton8952]

this is such a great way of putting it, thanks man

[@wildfeather]

Wonderful research and presentation. One of the best I've seen on the subject. It's a breath of fresh air to me, a Vietnam vet who's quite concerned during these troubled times. Thank you for your dedication to providing sound reliable material.

[@lakobause]

This reminds me of a quote from Agent Kay from Men in Black: "There's always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Corillian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out all life on this miserable little planet, and the only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they DO NOT KNOW ABOUT IT!"

[@artnull13]

Ah that explains the slap - Agent J got recalled

[@tikaanipippin]

In my personally curated copy of "The HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy" This quote ("There's always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Corillian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out all life on this miserable little planet, and the only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they DO NOT KNOW ABOUT IT!") inexplicably occurs as a footnote on page 42. (It is immediately followed by yet another recipe for a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster v.II, which seems absolutely identical to the original recipe.)

[@fiendish9474]

Living in the pacific, I've been desensitized by the constant North Korean nuclear threats to everyone around them that I don't think Russia with way more to lose would risk using their arsenal. I hope I don't get proven wrong, dear God

[@roblangada4516]

That assumption requires Putin to be a logical agent. He might very well be, but will he always be? What if he goes senile? What if the stress from this invasion not going as planned knocks a spring loose in his head?

[@MisterBrausepulver]

The thing that scares me the most is that russia has "small yield" tactical nuclear bombs. And a desperate Putin might be tempted to use them while believing not to provoce a full scale nuclear war. As a Europea I am also especially terrified by the implications of that. Case 1) NATO also responds with nuclear weapons: We will have a global nuclear war. Case 2) There won't be a nuclear response in which case russia is likely to launch further nuclear attacks. The aggressor seems to have lower costs than the defender. That is what really scares me.

[@DorathyTheDinosaur]

I'm not sure why I come home from work and check KZbin for my weekly 1 hour slideshow presentation. I think you are well and truly scratching my military economics analysis itch.

[@badlt5897]

Because this one hour makes you smarter than the other 6 days and 23 hours of coverage we've heard.

[@ContraVsGigi]

Loved the "random" selection of the 2 countries that might be in a nuclear situation: a small country wanting to join a "blue" coalition, a big nuclear neighbour yelling not to do that as they might use their nuclear weapons :))

[@scratchy996]

It's just "hypothetical".

[@iam8401]

Remember Cuban crisis?

[@Superknullisch]

"thei" and "migjt"??😏😅 But good comment otherwise!😉

[@ContraVsGigi]

@@Superknullisch Thanks, I corrected.

[@Laotzu.Goldbug]

@@iam8401 the Cuban Missile Crisis was different in nearly every conceivable way

[@noneofyourbusiness4133]

“The economy does better because not everyone is dead.”

[@martins.4240]

Words to live by.

[@RCorvinus]

Kappa

[@GhostlyJorg]

well...

[@_Lumiere_]

It would be horrible for the economy!

[@findor5639]

As a Finn I appreciate to subtlety of hypothetical scenario with Finnish prime minister and flag at the background, since it's very similar to historical Finnish way of speaking about possible threat from the East.

[@ak9266]

Findor, as a Finn, can you tell for what Finland want to join NATO? Do the Finns support this decision?

[@findor5639]

@@ak9266 I mean that's fairly complicated question, both as a short answer: Yes, there seems to be wide support, both political and in public. As for reasons, Finland has undeniably become part of the "West" after end of Soviet Union and therefore in regards to Russia we are seen as getting all of the downsides that comes with that without any of the security benefits provided by the NATO membership. And of course the situation in Ukraine was the straw that broke the camel's back (I would argue that it hit Finns especially hard given our historical context) that basically tipped to scale between any possible uncertainty that the membership would bring and its benefits.

[@ak9266]

@@findor5639 thank you very much for your answer

[@AmySavage6]

As a massive Fallout fan I hope your sound analysis is correct. The one thing those games drilled into my young mind 20 years back is that nukes aren't cool, they're terrifying and should remain in their silos. I do have to note on the Russian habit of threatening vague nuclear-sounding consequences if we (Finland) or other neutrals don't do what they tell us. There's a bit of a cry-wolf effect with them. Russia has threatened doomsday so often and over so many issues that threats like the ones we're seeing now don't carry the intended punch.

[@TurboHappyCar]

Also a big Fallout fan. I think the main issue would be the lack of mods and access to the console. What's even the point of an apocalyptic wasteland if there aren't any anime girls and sim settlements? 😂

[@IsaacHenryinAK]

But invading non-nuclear-capable countries and shelling cities does carry a punch.

[@alexander1112000]

32:12 For the gamers out there, this is actually the situation that leads to the Fallout universe. The US and Red China got into a conventional war, the US ended up invading mainland China and was in spitting distance of Beijing (and was clearly on the verge of victory) when China launched every nuke in it’s arsenal at all their pre-selected targets, which prompted automated response from the US, which prompted automated responses from the Soviet Union, which prompted automated responses from the remnants of the European Commonwealth, etc, until the only not nuked nation left was Australia. Because the Aussies have it bad enough with the native fauna so they don’t need irradiated mutants.

[@undercrackers56]

I have vivid memory of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. At school we practiced the drill of getting under our desk for protection. Even at the age of 6 I realised that this was a laughably futile gesture. At that age I dreamed of robots, space travel and how advanced mankind would be by 21st Century. Sadly despite huge advances in technology we are as primitive as ever.

[@landochabod7]

It's not all bad. The internet brought people across the world together (I'm an Italian, here to listen to a lecture by an Australian...), we took lead out of gasoline and just this week scientists "photographed" the black hole at the center of the Milky Way. Cheers :)

[@maxcorder2211]

As a B-52 pilot in 1970, my target was Moscow with two nuclear bombs. Due to the time required to fly from the US, our ballistic missiles would have already struck. The only benefit to launching B-52’s is that we could be called back up to a certain point.

[@PeteCswampy]

Max, very interesting to hear from an actual B52 pilot. Those are big airplanes. The film ' Dr Stangelove" was apparently very acurate in its depiction of the aircraft. What do you think? (if you have seen the film)

[@maxcorder2211]

@@PeteCswampy Strangely enough, I haven’t seen it. Heard about it of course.

[@pax6833]

That would not be the only benefit. You could also have been given another target. Or make a more accurate strike than what ICBMs were capable of (for instance, if wanting to put a bomb right on top of a bunker complex rated against indirect nuclear strikes)

[@Mikhail-Tkachenko]

What was the planned flight path? (CPL + instrument pilot)

[@frankmiller95]

"Well, boys, l reckon this is it. Nucler combat, toe to toe with the Rooskies."

[@Dantick09]

“Nuclear powered cruise missile” has to be the most Russian weapon ever

[@metalfatigue708]

Nah the USA started developing one back in the 1960’s powered by an open cycle nuclear ramjet. The concept was that this thing would fly low at supersonic speeds and dump nuclear warheads off a pre designated points, before crashing and irradiating a wide area with it fuel source. Fortunately sanity prevailed and the program was cancelled but they did have a working model of the engine by the end.

[@target844]

@@metalfatigue708 I do not think the major reason for the cancelation was sanity but budgets and that there was no need for it. ICBM could be launched immediately and become available and nukes got smaller in size there was no need for a fast man or unmanned aircraft for strategic nuclear bomb delivery. The B-58 Hustler has a short service life, XB-70 Valkyrie is canceled. It was reasonable to develop an aircraft delivery system when rockets were not capable or were slow to fuel and launch. But when air defenses get better and better and ICBM that can be launched immediately exist programs like that got canceled for a reason. There is some sense in developing it now when a ballistic missile defense system that works starts to exist. I would guess it is more of developing the capability to build it in the future if missile defense gets better. I suspect it is also a message to the US if you build missile defense we build this weapon that it can't stop so do not try to build a missile defense system that could handle all Russian ICMBs.

[@peterkracht6621]

Naw, that honor belongs to the coal-fired, steam-turbine powered cruise missile.

[@Giganfan2k1]

Fission candle cruise missile.... O.o

[@dosmastrify]

Scott Manley has a video on the rocket equivalent. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mae9m5uNepJmsK8

[@cheater556]

Hi Perun I wanted to say thanks for this video. While your word and research would not be able to stop the horrible event from happening it does give reasons to be quietly optimistic. I used some of your points to help talk down some of my friends and family who worry a lot about this topic.

[@_Churchy]

Really glad you're on the mend. My Dad is recovering from covid and he gets wiped out quick so take yr time. And I really appreciate this video, not that I'm a panic merchant, but it helped me find some clarity. Thanks Perun 👍🏾👏🏾

[@nikolaivdb]

Here we go! Thanks Perun, hope you're feeling better

[@rapturedmourning]

After "losing", Russia can say "Our joint Russian and NATO operation in Ukraine has successfully removed the Nazis, and we have taken their grain and John Deere tractors".

[@Aptonoth]

Underrated comment lol.

[@wotnot4646]

My opinion is that some commander or general stole the grain and equipment for themselves the same way the more common Russian soldier stole washing machines. The general's theft is just on the industry scale.

[@jskratnyarlathotep8411]

@@wotnot4646 but generals can not use federal police to escort trucks with grains, do they?

[@tealc6218]

American farmers have trouble getting new John Deere tractors fixed because they wait forever on a JD tech, since JD has many repairs locked out at the software level...good luck getting someone to fix them when they breakdown or need maintenance.

[@j.pgoodwin9020]

@@tealc6218 JD has remotely disabled them

[@TWFydGlu]

Something missing is a discussion about the "red button". People have somehow got it in their imagination that Putin just pushes a red button a missiles starts flying, when the systems are more complicated and involve people who are not terminally ill.

[@garethh.watson4089]

Discussed and covered if you listened to the content. Imaginary red buttons are irrelevant.

[@mickday5234]

So who told you that Putin is terminally ill MSM. You will sleep better without them!?

[@lythiomaniac6391]

I've been waiting all week on the next one in this series. Thank you for your work and diligence with these. I greatly appreciate them, as do many others

[@Terrados1337]

Having witnessed the incompetence of the russian army, I am mostly scared about them accidentally going nuclear.

[@CoffinElement]

you know.. maybe they'd accidently detonate on themselves x D

[@ishan7735]

i dont think they are incompetence

[@gwilliams4269]

No nuclear power is incompetent But. 🥺S--t happens ...☯️☮️

[@jkr9594]

Lavrow in august: "today Moskow was attacked by the nazl drog addicted swines of the russ... Russian federation. we hereby declare war on them."

[@JohnnyKaw11B]

@@ishan7735 I'm a former infantryman, and watching the Russian soldiers work on many different videos leads me to believe that most of their infantryman haven't received enough/good training. Most of them are incompetent.

[@peope1976]

I look back at the cold war with nostalgia remembering that this could be the day we where invaded or there was the end of the human civilization. Born and raised in Sweden -76 at some time invasion or destruction was inevitable possibilities. You had to deal with it. And you did. We had our airforce base flying Viggen attack jets daily. Windows where rattling. We had dug us in something abnormal. There where leaders of countries asking us what kind of war we where preparing for. We had alternate production for necessary things like swedish snus (wet tobacco under your lip) and all kinds of other production the civilians and military needed. We had caves full of oil. Like big seas of oil expecting us to be cut off. Stores to keep the population from dying and also production to keep the troops. We had conscription with retraining weeks. Poor and rich mixed and there where friendships for life. We knew we had an enemy that was overwhelming. We where told never to end the fight. It gave character to boys who came out kind of like men. Each serving in a post that the govt thought would be the best utility. We had NCOs om group, platoon and even a conscript officer level on company level. I remember the training. We took risks that our current professional military do not take. Like how when I grew up we didn't wear bicycle helmets unless there was something problematic with us acceptation of risks changed over time making it more or less mandatory to wear helmets if you ride a bike. At least for kids. The military was taught to take initiative and some played around with their explosives. We had bomb-shelters everywhere. In cellars. In garages. We had plans for blowing up anything useful by the coast that the enemy would want and flee westward into the country. We also had hospitals hidden in schools. Normal kids went to school not knowing above the lamps and ceiling was oxygen, operating lights and all kinds of medical stuff. We had a leading central blown into the mountain 100 meters from where I lived. On top of that mountain was a machine-gun nest filled with stone. Inside was communications and command and control facilities with bunks and its self-contained water and all. There even was a faraday cage that was used for electronics. I believe it was for the local civil govt. The military probably had other control centrals hidden deep into mountains. It was a completely different life. Remembering the fall of the wall. The lifting of the looming threat of nuclear destruction and invasion. The happiness for the freedom of the soviet people. I remember so much good will towards the Russians hoping their lives would be much much better now., If we are not prepared to stand up to a nuclear ultimatum we are forever slaves. it is not within our control to choose to press that button or not even if everything was fine. Make it impotent by saying no. And I am sorry about how Sweden acted during WW2. In part we where neutral but in part we accommodated the axis. The Finnish friends obviously didn't think highly of us when we didn't take up arms in their defense. We had volunteers. Sent materiel. Food. As a controverse we also took in Finnish kids for safety. (Something that had tragic consequences with identity and family ties). I am so for joining NATO. And not for our own benefit and protection. Mostly for the solidarity with our like-minded friends and countries. Especially the baltic states. I am sure we would have people posted along Finland on its border. We are quite used to cold (up in the north at least) so it is an environment we are suited for. We have lived through years and years of threats of armageddon. Don't be weak. I lived with it as a kid. You can do too.

[@ane-louisestampe7939]

as for WWII, the Danes are grateful for Sweden sawing thousands of Danish lives, so don't be too hard on yourself. If Putin touches Finland, we'll all (Scandinavians, that is) have to go there - so let's hope he doesn't. Peace and love Edit: I'm born in '64, grown up the coast of the Great Belt. It felt like we were basically waiting for "them"

[@TeaParty1776]

> And I am sorry about how Sweden acted during WW2. See "Counterfeit Traitor" w/William Holden

[@joemerino3243]

This was an amazing post.

[@jamesmoroney1378]

What a wonderful synopsis of Swedish and American life during the cold war. At 17 I went into the United States Navy and into the Submarine Service - both diesel and nuclear boats. I was born in 1949 . I went into the submarine service in 1966 and was in it until 1972.. Always following around the Soviets. I like to think that we were able to make a positive impact impact on a safe free world . Your synopsis is very very good and should be read by all that are Interested in following and understanding the the cold war and today's threats to our freedom. Throughout the history of humanity, we always have needed good hard men with dangerous weapons! Best regards, Jim Moroney

[@KaiserMattTygore927]

You won't live with anything if we get this wrong. Fake strength that ends the human race is weakness by any other name.

[@The_ZeroLine]

Thank god we’ve got at least a few people out there giving straight facts as well as context via a succinct overview of historical events, long standing doctrines, etc. BTW, a lot of commenters have noted “don’t feel gun shy cause you haven’t worn a uniform.” The number of former soldiers with videos talking about the war that are filled with nonsense or simply nothing you couldn’t learn in the worst evening news brief is considerable. There are vets with great analyses and vids too. Sharp and dull tools in every industry/profession/service.

[@markjmacrae]

“A second sunrise over Ukraine” is an absolutely beautiful phrase. Great video!

[@obsidianjane4413]

Except its horrible implication.

[@BiggestCorvid]

Old old old cold war phrase.

[@Up2Speed]

The future is bright, so bright in fact, that you don’t even need to open your eyes!

[@CJ-nd9gg]

Reminds me of the Roger Waters song ‘Two Suns in the Sunset’

[@sarkybugger5009]

@@CJ-nd9gg Beat me to it!

[@Yellowsnow69420]

I’m so fed up with Russia’s nuclear saber rattling that I’m at the point where I’m thinking “just shut the fuck up” every time they say “we might use em.”

[@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537]

Lavrov opens his horse mouth and the only thing that needs to be said is /watch?v=YAgRBq2jnz4 It's the head pain meme, and I am multiple fifths of vodka in not having any of that bullshit.

[@suburbia2050]

Funny how we have still decided to trade with them over the years despite the Kremlin allowing the idea of nuclear threat to leak out through their media, Putins Russia should have been out on pariah status decades ago

[@Mike-fk7ur]

True, better push the red button and let it all be over with, no more war in Ukraine, no more covid-19, no more economic downfall, only peace...

[@jhonatancock2302]

Do it, DO IT NOW!!

[@Yellowsnow69420]

@@suburbia2050 oh, but don’t you remember? Bush looked into his eyes (soul?) and saw a good man…🤦‍♂️

[@equesta]

I've never looked forward to a 50 minute PowerPoint Presentation as much as this!

[@mariokartgamecube]

"In the event of a military conflict, this Policy provides for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies" The most literal way of reading that just means that Russia won't unconditionally surrender, which is one of the base deterrence cases for pretty much any nuclear state. "Acceptable" does not mean "favorable", it just means that they will literally accept terms.

[@gabenguyen1216]

I remember being stationed in Europe and the forecast during an invasion was a survivability of 15 hours to 3 days before annihilation depending on the scenario. I am both relieved and surprised at how dire we thought it would be. Maybe we're wrong about the nuclear threat as well but I imagine the consequences would still be catastrophic.

[@joeschmo5166]

Sad to say, but at this point I think our best hope is that their nukes work as well as their tanks. Go Ukies!

[@julesgro8526]

The logic of nuclear weapons never seizes to amaze me. It´s soooo close to being paradox that it´s downright weird.

[@matthewyabsley]

Nuclear standoffs are like both sides standing in a pool of gasoline, with 1 side bragging they have 5 matches whilst the other side has 4....

[@michaeldeaton]

From all outward appearances, the rust, the rot, of the graft and corruption in the Russian system has been fairly complete and thorough. It costs quite a lot to keep up that nuclear arsenal. Who knows how many detonators were said to have been replaced properly that weren't and the money disappeared up some middle level military stooge's coat sleeves? Its not something you want to gamble with but at the same time, we shouldn't let incompetent bullies push us around when they're showing themselves to be mostly a paper tiger.

[@aenorist2431]

Or they just pawn off warheads on the black market now and then. Honestly, a corrupt nuclear force is still world-endingly deadly, but also terrifying in its own right.

[@lukasgruber1280]

The US spends around half the total Russian military budget on just maintaining their existing nuclear arsenal. So you can imagine how well the even bigger Russian arsenal is maintained.

[@davidbonn8740]

I think you can go quite a bit further than that. Given the rot and corruption within the military that has affected all branches we can see, it is extraordinarily unlikely that most of their nuclear weapons will work as advertised or planned. In addition, there is no way at this point in time that the Russians can know how bad the problem is, and it will likely take them many months to figure that out. And in any event it will likely take them many years to address those problems.

[@rodiculous9464]

@@davidbonn8740 thanks for the insight general patreus. Would love to see your PHD paper elucidating these claims.

[@jerrywatson1958]

@@davidbonn8740 As has been shown when UKR captures T-80 and T-90 tanks from RU. The shells they have loaded 60% don't have primers. Training rounds with plastic primers. Munitions that can't explode can't win battles. So while RU has a lot of missiles, a majority fail (thank God!) But the ones that do "work" cause great pain and destruction. It's a full time job clearing unexploded munitions in UKR.

[@antman2826]

This is where I come to get no nonsense and well researched and reasoned info and commentary on what is going on in this crisis. The long form format is perfect for getting to the broad understanding of the situation both militarily and diplomatically. You’re proving a fantastic service and you are a rare gem. So, please keep going. 👍

[@1000kennedydk]

I happened upon your site. Thank you for your presentations. They are well-organized and easy to understand, so that we can think about what you present. Good job!

[@officernealy]

A lot of Russian bots like to bring up the fact that Russia has hypersonic missiles as if they somehow believe that definitively proves that they would "win" a nuclear war against the United States and NATO nations but they seem to be willfully ignorant of multiple obstacles to prop up the notion _"Russkiy stronk"_ : - The amount of hypersonic missiles in Russia's arsenal is very low. They've only formally declared 15 and with the existing sanctions in place from when they annexed Crimea that halted mass development on their other wunderwaffe such as the T-14 Armata and the Sukhoi Su-57, its safe to assume that the real number is barely higher than that. Not all of their 6,000+ soviet era stock, the ones that are maintained btw, are hypersonic nor can they be easily retrofitted to be them either. - Hypothetically, let's just say that the real number is 50 hypersonic nuclear missiles. Russia doesn't just have 50 targets they'd have to hit to "win" the nuclear war and they're not all located within the US. They'd have to hit multiple targets in the UK, France, Germany, Poland, Turkey, Japan, and other NATO aligned nations. Emptying your entire stock of super-futuristic missiles with no way to replace them short term is an incredibly idiotic approach so that would mean they'd have to use their standard, much slower ICBM's in tandem which defeats the purpose of hypersonics as those are easily detectable on early warning systems and countermeasures can be mounted. - The US has publicly confirmed there are two hypersonic missile projects in the works, but thats only what they're telling us. Unlike Russia that has to constantly parade its most up-to-date-arsenal to convince itself that its still a global superpower, the United States has been historically hush-hush on its up-to-date tech. Examples include the SR-71 Blackbird entering service in the early 1960's but the world at large not knowing about the craft until the mid 1980's, the US Military had access to ARPAnet decades before the world got their first taste of the internet, or that the only reason the world found out that the US has stealth helicopter technology was because an outfitted UH-60 Blackhawk went down during the otherwise successful raid on Osama bin Laden's compound. There are rumors abound of the US actively testing laser & railgun tech which would be faster than hypersonics and while it can't be confirmed if those are real or ready, it should be noted that unlike Russia there has been nothing financially stopping the US from continuously advancing its weapons and defense systems. - Thinking the Hypersonic missiles would decisively win Russia a nuclear war is to assume that the conflict is over once the first strikes happen, that what remains of the US and her allies would just accept annihilation, and that NATO's nuclear arsenal is entirely landlocked missile silos that can be easily wiped out. It doesn't factor in the they have numerous nuclear submarines as well as strategic bombers that stay in the air 24/7. Unless those Kinzhal & Zircon missiles simultaneously throw up magic deflector shields around Moscow, St. Petersburg, Volgograd, and other cities while they rocket towards their targets, there is little to nothing to stop a retaliatory strike from a very hidden and very angry strike force that is hellbent to drag Russia to hell with them.

[@User-jr7vf]

While I get your point, I don't see the logic in NATO "massively retaliating" with nukes a first strike by Russia... because that would only cause Russia to "massively re-retaliate"... and in the end guess what.. the world is over.

[@LunaticTheCat]

Also the US has nuclear submarines all over the world, so if nuclear war were to breakout nukes launched from these submarines could easily strike in Russia just as fast as a hypersonic missiles launched from Russia would strike in the US.

[@userofthetube2701]

Since there already is no way to stop ICBM's in any significant numbers, the hypersonic missile thing really doesn't do anything to change the nuclear balance of power.

[@kekistanimememan170]

The V2 missile was hypersonic in its terminal faze. It’s simply Russian rebranding of existing ICMBs it’s like the t90 re brand. It’s a t72 just new.

[@officernealy]

@@User-jr7vf Are you aware of the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction or *MAD?* Most people are so instead of explaining what it means, I'd rather focus on how we got there. If Humans aren't self-interested creatures, we certainly reactionary. If there was credibly evidence that the Russian Federation launched a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the United States, literally actually no one in the US high command would think _"Well, its a pity that Russia took such an evil act against us, but we can take comfort in our final moments knowing they'll get to live the lives we won't while becoming the new world rulers."_ No, instead they would do everything in their power to make them suffer and in that moment the only way to do that is repeat their slight onto them

[@Newbmann]

Wow a powerpoint with good pacing and doesnt drag on. I cant belive it. Amazing work

[@kuchervano]

You Sir are an international treasure. Appreciate the return to the roots as well, was just re-watching your oldest vidjeos.

[@Bigcrusha16]

Great points Perun. I'd go a step further in arguing that Russia would not have given the order to withdraw from Kyiv or permitted itself to absorb such catastrophic losses of military personel/infrastructure had it decided that abandoning the deterrence game was a worthwhile pursuit. This further strengthens your mentioned point that use of Nuclear arms would need to yield a net benefit to Russia, they are already in a worse position, nukes will not undo the economic and military damage it has sustained in this campaign.

[@GhostlyJorg]

The actual beneficial use-case of a nuclear bomb in the Ukraine conflict right now for the Russians, would be to create an EMP over Kyiv destroying practically all electronic devices and electrical transformers to disrupt the military command structure. This would actually mesh well with conventional Russian forces pulling back. Tell me I'm wrong

[@doyouwanttogivemelekiss3097]

@@GhostlyJorg a couple of caveats and questions: 1) by definition, that crosses the nuclear threshold. I.e. russia would open itself to western nuclear doctrines (uk/fr/us) , where I am not sure whether they are as well aligned as one may assume. I.e. the western response may be hard to calculate. 2) for it to be effective against even slightly hardened targets, it would need to be so massive as to either affect soft infrastructure in russia or in the west. in which case it would be considered as a direct attack on the west and it would be answered as such. 3) conversely, hardened military targets may still be resilient in Kyiv - so it isn't even clear to me whether it would achieve its intended goals. So in all, I think it would be a high risk, limited reward move. Then again, that would fit perfectly with the russian war logic of the past two months...

[@TeaParty1776]

@@GhostlyJorg You drop the context of nuclear war in principle. A Russian tactical nuke would encourage a US 1st nuke strike in a crisis. The resulting global destruction would end the Russian desire to spread Christianity. And Christianity, contra Islam, does not have the after-glorious-death-in-war party at the Playboy mansion. Christians who get to Heaven must sit quietly on hard wooden pews for eternity, listening to stern-faced nuns. Its not a fun religion.

[@doyouwanttogivemelekiss3097]

how about antisatellite weapons e.g. against starlink and gps? would that be feasible? I mean it would be unprecedented too

[@MrMichaelBCurtis]

OR the Russians have withdrawn so they CAN use nukes on Kyiv. Russia seems more to care about destroying Ukraine than taking it over in tact

[@phoenix042x7]

Finally, a realist and someone with what appears to be sense. We need more of this sort of analysis.

[@nibblrrr7124]

02:28 *What am I going to cover?* - 03:33 *TLDR* - 05:28 *What is Russia doing?* - 11:50 *Does nuclear coercion work?* - 18:59 *Russian nuclear doctrine* · 25:32 · 28:17 - 33:48 *Will they use nukes?* - 39:24 *When might nukes be used? - **42:03** *How do you prevent use?* - 44:30 *Key takeaways* - 47:33 _Channel update_ - 00:00 Introduction 01:02 Nukes and the media 02:09 But hold up a moment 02:28 What am I going to cover? 03:33 TLDR 04:40 Caveats 05:28 *WHAT IS RUSSIA DOING?* 05:34 Capability demonstration 06:21 Rhetoric 07:10 Capability development 10:21 So who is the audience? 11:50 *DOES NUCLEAR COERCION WORK?* 12:02 Historically? No 14:30 Nuclear taboo 16:34 A simple example 18:59 *RUSSIAN NUCLEAR DOCTRINE* 19:08 Doctrine and declaratory strategy 20:03 Why should we care? 21:34 Lavrov quote 21:58 Putin the nuclear warmonger? 25:32 Historical perspective 28:17 The 2020 statement 29:39 The four reasons 32:11 "Escalate to de-escalate" 33:48 *SO WILL THEY USE NUKES?* 34:10 No doctrinal use case 35:03 Russian media control to the rescue 36:15 No military utility 37:14 Likely response 39:24 *WHEN MIGHT NUKES BE USED?* 39:39 Nuclear use case? 42:03 *HOW DO YOU PREVENT USE?* 42:11 Signal and deter 44:30 *KEY TAKEAWAYS* 47:33 _CHANNEL UPDATE_

[@rick7424]

Thank you! Your help is greatly appreciated!

[@Joan-xy5wm]

Well done, sir. I salute your effort.

[@mitchellbaker4806]

Should be top comment.

[@shuaguin5446]

Up ! Up you go.

[@Canessa1298]

@@mitchellbaker4806 is in the description...

[@LeeBrown92038]

Greetings from Moscow. Thank you for such a detailed analysis. Definitely a calming voice of reason in times of unprecedented hysteria.

[@williamyoung9401]

"We don't know who fired first...us or them...but we know it was us that scorched the sky..."

[@lynxfirenze4994]

Honestly at this point I'm actually relatively relaxed about the prospect of a nuclear war coming from Ukraine. Everyone knows that using even a minor nuclear weapon will result in becoming a pariah state at best and annihilation at worst. The best response to it is perhaps to just make it known that you're ready with your own nuclear forces and will respond to any use of nuclear weapons with extreme force.

[@Kayzef2003]

Is USA a pariah state for using nuclear weapons TWICE?

[@pm.meowth4850]

@@Kayzef2003 the whole of ww2 was a war crime…so stop… minus killing hitler

[@thunderspark1536]

@@Kayzef2003 No, because the US did it to end the second world war. Even with that people are still arguing if it was the right choice

[@rocerist]

@@Kayzef2003 were the japanese not pariahs? Enough was enough, those old fossils didnt want the smoke 😂😂😂 L

[@cass7448]

@@Kayzef2003 No because a) Given the scale of WW2 and the regular bombing raids, it was not an escalation b) Japan was clearly the aggressor and had plenty of chances to stop the war and c) The world at large hadn't yet established a legal or moral framework for the use of nuclear weapons (for comparison, see the use of chemical weapons in WW1).

[@broderbunto2305]

Congrats on your success with the new content. I really like the long format slide shows, there is already to much clickbaity rage content on the internet. I'm looking forward to lots of interesting episodes. Thank you for your good work.

[@Gurfi28]

The nuclear threat doesn‘t scare me at all. Should a nuclear war happen, nothing will matter and I‘ll most likely die. I personally can‘t change anything when it comes to these things, so why should I worry?

[@Me2goTi]

I find it funny that people always assume that they're gonna just die during the first strike. Do you live near a really imporant military base or in the city center of a megacity? If not, it's unlike you're gonna die on day X. Most likely you will die from the following consequences several months, maybe even years later.

[@apotato6278]

I have an old bomb shelter on my property. A few years ago I renovated it and turned it into a wine cellar/recreation room. If a Russian nuke goes off I'm going to have a few dozen bottles of homemade wine, hammer some nails through my pool cue, switch my jeans for leather shorts and proclaim myself the raider king. If a Russian nuke doesn't go off I'll have one bottle of homemade wine before falling asleep on the couch. Either way I'm in for a good time.

[@SpiffRogue]

You truly have an inherent lack of imagination that is frightening.

[@andrewfleenor7459]

The majority of people will in fact survive (especially outside major population centers). We'll just all be miserable, hungry, riddled with cancer, etc.

[@Gurfi28]

@@andrewfleenor7459 Well, that‘s a world I don‘t want to live in.

[@FredPauling]

Very reassuring video. Balanced content like this is extremely important to combat the fear mongering and propaganda on both sides of this conflict.

[@NikolayNikoloff]

I'm currently surviving covid (hopefully, it's been a week since I feel like shit), thanks for the upload, it's what I've been saying to all the fearmongers out there, excellent work as usual!

[@MrWeezy312]

Best of luck! Kick covids ass and steal its lunch money while your at it.

[@theecat3689]

hey, coming from someone who has gone through it and helped people through it, 2nd week can be worse. thats when i developed the cough that lasted weeks. keep vigilant, make sure you check your oxygen level if possible, and keep eating healthy! if not possible, make sure you got multivitamins and make sure to finish your recommended antibiotics if necessary to prevent secondary infections. take care, stay safe, and i hope you feel better soon!

[@NikolayNikoloff]

@@theecat3689 thanks, if it gets worse Ill take antibiotics, but for know it's just mild cough and fatigue and yeah, i'm checking my biometrics + a lot of good food and vitamins, thank you, glad you beat it!

[@macmcleod1188]

If you have medical care then see a doctor about possible heart inflammation afterwards. It happens in about 30% of young people and at a higher rate in older people. Don't immediately return to heavy exercise. And this is true whether you have a severe case or a first mild case. I don't know if it's true for the second and third and so on times you catch covid.

[@ArtZasadny]

I wish you a rapid full recovery!

[@daskurka]

"hypothetical small nation subject to coercion by a big nation trying to stop the small nation from joining an alliance" Shows picture of Finnish PM in front of Finnish flag... 👀👀👀👀

[@warbrain1053]

I mean perfect example

[@TiagoJoaoSilva]

Well, she's a looker.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

I recommend the book " When Governments Collide", it's a case book example of how government messages to their enemies go wrong.

[@FoxtrotYouniform]

edit - you talking about the one by Wallace Thies? Will pick it up. The analyses discussing the national signaling always makes me think back to the first Gulf War, where a combination of poor and mixed message signaling combined with a sudden domestic priority shift to suddenly lead to a war that everyone seemed to think was being cleverly avoided.

[@engineerskalinera]

Here's a classic example. "We will bury you" -Khrushcev, 1956, intended to mean something like "we will outlive you" or "your funeral" but interpreted by the West as a nuclear threat.

[@howarddavis2281]

Essence of Decision by Allison is very instructive too. How the Cuban Missile Crisis was a series of very near misses rather than confirmation of rational actor deterrence theory.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

@@howarddavis2281 Must investigate this, apparently, communications between lower grade Soviet military officials and the big blokes broke down. The decision to launch nuclear weapons was under low-grade officials and some came quite close to launching

[@WagesOfDestruction]

@@FoxtrotYouniform It is said that wars are the result of miscalculations. I was reading an interview of a Hezbollah leader who stated that if they had known that capturing two Israeli soldiers would have led to the 2006 Lebanon War, they never would have done it. The same could be said of many wars. Would Iranians have committed their acts of terrorism in Iraq if they had known how Saddam would react, would Serbia have supported the Black Hand if they had known what would happen, etc.? The premise of this video is that people are rational, they are not particularly in times of stress.

[@JMACCSArmiesOfMiddleEarth]

"End up destorying the planet" I think were doing a good job of that without nukes to be honest. Great vid man.

[@jaronfranklin1]

Even a worse case scenario for Russia in Ukraine would only get you as far as starting down the road of an internal Russian regime change. Using nukes forces any economic lifelines Russia has to immediately disengage and would only lead to a forced decapitation by Nato forces or hasten internal discontent there's nothing to gain everything to lose

[@FoxtrotYouniform]

I agree with your ideas about what Russian use of a nuke would bring, but contest whether that may have any influence in the decision making to use a nuke. All indications are that internal command structure communications within Russia have mostly broken down as nobody is willing to brief Putin fully. If Putin is convinced that a nuke would be useful, and I can see scenarios where he would, then I think that the command to use one is possible.

[@jaronfranklin1]

@@FoxtrotYouniform In that scenario it would be possible if Putin had recently shown an appetite for nuclear use. But all signs point to that his use cases don’t apply to Ukraine. Full declaration of war is much more likely and a fully mobilized Russian Army is strong enough to kick the Nuclear can down the road at least

[@rodiculous9464]

What do you think "regime change" looks like? You think navy seals are gonna storm the Kremlin and kill putin and everything will be hunky dory? The entire russian govt is behind him and like it or not, putin is a centrist. There's FSB hardliners that have been screeching for nukes constantly. This isn't going away easily or any time soon.

[@FoxtrotYouniform]

@@jaronfranklin1 I would once again agree that any nuclear use case scenarios have yet to be reached, but the two most likely progressions of this war from here tend to lead towards use cases. My basis for this thinking - Russia's invasion is not merely a land grab or an opportunistic war, it is an expression of forces which Russian leadership consider to threaten the Russian state on a critical level. Russian domestic demographics, the foreign reliance upon the advanced elements of the Russian economy, and the inability of Russia's domestic social and civil infrastructure to produces the skilled workforce needed all combine to show Russian leaders that without action they will be a client state to either the US/Europe or to China. This is entirely unacceptable to Russia. This invasion, if successful, would at least be one step in the direction of addressing these forces by increasing the population pool for workers, increasing the material resources available with which to develop the Russian economy, and the move towards a more geographically secure geostrategic position, all combine with the respect and esteem given to military victors to show Russian leadership a phantom of an image of a way out. Problem is, as NATO floods in weapons and money that way out becomes even more tenuous. It is unlikely Russia can ever fully occupy Ukraine without Chinese support, at least as long as NATO is interfering, and so a sort of proxy war between NATO and China becomes more likely as time goes on. This isn't out of love for Russia by China,, but internal recognition by Chinese elites that if Russia falls to the west then China may not be strong enough on their own to unseat the US. That potential reality of a 21st century proxybwar, if accurate,, makes even more likely NATO direct involvement, whatever reasoning may be given. If NATO gets involved, I think Russia will find few options aside from using 1 or 2 small yield nukes and crossing their fingers, as any other realistic scenario where NATO fights Russia ends with a new Russian regime.

[@FoxtrotYouniform]

@@rodiculous9464 there are two likely scenarios I see for regime change. First is an internal uprising, most likely a coup, and the result would almost certainly be another hostile regime. The second would be the result of direct NATO involvement in the Ukrainian conflict and resulting from hostile external dismantling of the state followed by support for new state mechanisms being erected in their place. I would highly contest any description of Putin which referred to him as anything akin to "a centrist" as while its a term with very little meaning it implies that he is not an avenue for increased polarity or extremism, merely an outlet for it, and I dont see any reason that assertion is credible given how he has handled the mechanisms of his state.

[@Unsensitive]

Be glad you didn't have COVID 2 years ago. It really sucked! My wife had severe fatigue for months afterwards, and couldn't taste anything for over a month.

[@jansenart0]

6:45 That "command" Putin gave was hilarious; it instantly reminded me of "Double Secret Probation" because his nuclear forces have a very specific progression of posture and what he said was not on that list.

[@fluo9576]

Really? Like he said something completely non sense? Lol, I mean just look at the face of the other guys when he speaks, they are like “yo for real?”

[@warbrain1053]

@@fluo9576 he said a state of preparation that doesn't exist. Like if i said put nuclear forces into defcon 2.5

[@fluo9576]

@@warbrain1053 damn that’s kinda hilarious. I’m still scared anyway but damn

[@warbrain1053]

@@fluo9576 so the soldiers were like : doesn't exist, well time to do nothing again

[@jansenart0]

@@fluo9576 Yes, he did. They were like "that's... not a thing?"

[@grzzz2287]

Brilliant synopsis and superlative factual content. If only the mainstream news reporters followed suit!

[@JOHANDOMEIJ]

Great content, yours is some of the most levelheaded and informed commentary on this topic on KZbin. And I'm happy it's working out for you! Just don't get to depressed and surprised when interest fades once Ukraine takes a backseat in the news cycle.

[@barleysixseventwo6665]

My new favorite out of context line ever: “Every time a Russian Authority opens their mouth and says the N-word, it seems the apocalypse is one step closer.”

[@kmech3rd]

But is it the Hard R version?

[@weirdofromhalo]

@@kmech3rd Nucleah

[@als1023]

Whaaa,, nobody throws in the Bush ' newcular ' ,,, sheesh,,

[@als1023]

@@capturedflame Yes I'm very aware that Bush was much smarter than CNN et al made him out to be. Biden could never manage his files. And of course no one dared use the chimp meme on Obama,, I was just making a crack joke off the cuff. Thanks for posting,, Slava Ukraine !!

[@lwilton]

I think there are about three things worth considering here: 1. If Russia uses nukes in Ukraine, it is likely to be tactical nukes. These will have a burst height somewhere between about -100 feet and 5000 feet. A tactical nuke probably can't penetrate much below 100 feet into the ground and still be intact enough to blow up, and a burst much above 5K feet will have too wide a coverage area for tactical use, probably killing most of the Russian invaders within 5 miles or so of the blast. This would not be a positive outcome for Russia. Low altitude nuke blasts pull up a whole lot of dirt, which tends to become radioactive. This makes LOTS of fallout. You get much less fallout from a high-altitude strategic nuke burst. 2. Eastern Ukraine, like the Donbas region, is within about 20 miles of the Russian border, and the wind I believe is blowing generally east. That means that the blast will have an effect within Ukraine, but most all that fallout is likely to end up inside Russia itself. The effects after a year or two will probably be far worse inside Russia than in Ukraine. 3. Western Ukraine is very near to NATO countries. Having a lot of fallout blowing into NATO countries most likely would be considered a deliberate atomic attack on NATO members. NATO and the US, separately or together, would probably not be amused by this. Likely something long-term bad would happen to Russia.

[@カペラマヌエル]

👍 Not to mention that the arms race would be for real in Europe (with some countries trying to go nuclear as well?).

[@RealCS2000]

Don't forget how pissed China would be given their own geographical distance to both Russia and Ukraine as well.

[@pierrecurie]

@@RealCS2000 China would not be happy, but they're hella far from Ukraine.

[@jamesrowlands8971]

"If". They won't. Don't be absurd.

[@nwmancuso]

Your videos have come so far in a video. Amazing.

[@raideurng2508]

"But the whole point of the doomsday machine is lost... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?!"

[@JonZiegler6]

To announce it on victory day of course!

[@samueladams1775]

That was epic. Dr. Strangelove is an incredible movie. Many excellent actors.

[@megalonoobiacinc4863]

@@samueladams1775 absolutely, my favorite black and white movie

[@iainreid6292]

“The economy is better because not everyone is dead” 😂 love it

[@KinoTechUSA69]

"Every time a Russian official says the N-word" lmao

[@Scorch052]

honestly a galaxy-brained video if you're right, you kept ppl cool and stayed realistic ...and if you're wrong, well nobody will really be concerned at leaving an angry comment on youtube now, will they?

[@MelioraCogito]

Regarding your recent experience with CoViD: lethargy caused by anaemia literally sucks the life blood out of you. Hope you're getting bloodwork done to monitor your cell counts. Stay healthy, and great work on this analysis. Cheers from Canada.

[@nihilmarius6616]

Great work! Thank you for providing informative insightful content. I've been looking forward to watching more of stuff you make.

[@paulmurray8922]

I wasn't worried about nuclear annihilation in the 70s and I'm not worried about it today. I have great faith in MAD.

[@hazzardalsohazzard2624]

I'm slightly concerned, mainly from the response to a threat resulting in a first strike.

[@RideAcrossTheRiver]

Are you sure Putin cares abut MAD?

[@SuperCatacata]

@@RideAcrossTheRiver Anyone who lived through the actual cold war doesn't give a shit about Putin. MAD has prevailed with more hostile situations between nuclear powers.

[@rtqii]

@@RideAcrossTheRiver Putin does not care... His generals may not like the idea of self-incineration and the incineration of their wives and children however.

[@kamikaziking]

MAD went bye bye when Russians went hypersonic and the west hasnt, if anything its going to be pretty one sided.

[@johnpatrickpower7580]

Thanks for your informative analysis. I've just recovered from Covid myself - a week ago I was struggling for breath and know that tiredness. You have relieved me from worrying too much about Putin undermining my efforts to survive! Thank you :-).

[@LeeroyGgJenkins]

Thank you for this, as someone struggling with a generalized anxiety disorder this helps more than you can imagine

[@bj_cat103]

suffering with the same thing, but it just doesn't help me, even though I knew all of that even before watching the video as international relations are my speciality. Maybe you could give some advice on how to beat the fear that doesn't go even if I clearly understand that it won't happen

[@fluo9576]

Hey man I feel you. I’ve been feeling pretty sad and scared since this war started. I often sleep during the day (when I have the chance cause life goes on and I have stuff to do) because it’s the only thing that can cool me down. Just want you to now that you’re not the only one

[@rtqii]

@@bj_cat103 Once you have stared death in the face, the acceptance of fear can become absolute, and by accepting it, the fear while still there, become suppressed and normalized.

[@TeaParty1776]

Now you can focus your anxiety...

[@LeeroyGgJenkins]

@@bj_cat103 anxiety is not rational so it's hard to rationalize with it but if I burry my head in the sand and everytime the thought of nuclear annihilation shows up I can slap it with facts that's its not a winning scenario for anyone one even a holes in power and it helps me slow down the storm inside. Sorry I can just tell you what kinda works for me.. Also meds those help a lot lol

[@rosh1201]

I feel like I have a duty to like the videos before watching them. Thank you for all the information

[@Bill_Garthright]

I just wish we could like them _twice_ - once before watching and once afterwards. :)

[@alainnn.2459]

@@Bill_Garthright Technically you did: by commenting on the video the algorithm assumes that the video has a high engagement-factor, so more likely to be of interest to others and will therefore be presented to other potential viewers.

[@shiniesftw1652]

Yes daddy. Gimme that PowerPoint

[@jasoar1563]

up your tight boot?

[@EatMyShortsAU]

#MakePowerpointGreatAgain

[@holybased5039]

LMAO

[@Korvmannen]

Well deserved plaque! Pat yourself on the shoulder. The annoyance of your old microphone is gone luckily, and first with it there was so much echo, second not as much, and now it sounds great. 👍 I'd still suggest some EQ and a few other things as well, but this is more advanced and not strictly necessary. You have a really nice voice to listen to, but it always will be like photos where people adjust colors and a couple more things to make the object as pretty as in reality.

[@LordOfLight]

I'm glad that someone is bringing a sense of perspective to this issue - always a good idea - but given the nature of nuclear war, how likely does it have to be in order to, ever so slightly, terrify you? Mr. Perun gets 10/10 for originality btw. That's the first time I've ever heard a tendency to see nukes as the answer to military problems as "if you're looking for that 1950s retro vibe". 😂

[@alexandermckay8594]

That's a direct reference to Fallout 4.

[@talltroll7092]

"I don't want to set the woooorld on fiiiiiii-iiire..."

[@casbot71]

4:55 You didn't mention Australia's nuclear armed wildlife. Nuclear Marsupials from the Maralinga nuclear test site (from British nuclear test in the 1960's) have been developed. The radioactive desert regions have also produced some cases of atomic Emus, but they have yet to be weaponized. And Goannas and Cassowaries have been shown copies of Godzilla films, but they haven't so far had any tangible results.

[@jimlofts5433]

ssshhh thank god you didn't mention the ultra top secret drop bears

[@jpoeng]

@@jimlofts5433 😆 Beat me to it… I was about to mention the latest generation of drop bear technology with variable yield warheads…

[@casbot71]

As well as drop bears, koalas have been equipped with biological weapons - chlamydia was just the first phase as a test of concept.

[@davidty2006]

Us brits did quite a few nuclear tests... Only good thing from them is that we know our tanks are strong enough to eat a nuke

[@henningklaveness7082]

25:25 This confidence is being eradicated. The scary part is that Moscow is framing this war as an existential threat.

[@Pechenegus]

It is. Russia is way weaker then people think. If Russia will fail in Ukrain, it will stop existing as a state, as it is barely held together by a duct tape.

[@E4439Qv5]

It never had to be one, but it just may go that way.

[@spektrograf]

Congratulations on the 💯 K award!...and on recovering from covid. Glad you're on the mend now. Thanks as always for the insights driven from logical, grounded analysis. 🙏

[@michaldraw]

I'm so glad you made this video. Everybody I know keep acting like this is the end of the world, and that I am the crazy one for calling their bluff.

[@fluo9576]

I’m really scared anyway. I mean I know most of this is a bluff, but man after two months it’s really stressing to be threatened

[@michaldraw]

@@fluo9576 It's more than fine to be scared. Especially if you live near the conflict. I just find myself myself being derided for "not taking nukes seriously" far too often.

[@masterchef1174]

I feel like most people aren't taking nukes seriously in the right way, as in belittling them to the point that I've seen some call nukes 'just another bomb', or saying the only reaction that should be given in response to one's use is simply a total embargo of Russia. Is Russia bluffing? 99.99% certain, from now until the end of time, but I'm afraid that in the 0.01% scenario Russia does use nukes, this 'nukes aren't that bad' and 'don't be afraid of nukes' sentiment will result in total apathy from the world to their use. If Russia has even 1/20th of the nukes they claim to have functional, they could systematically annihilate Ukraine (if they get desperate enough, and Ukraine never gives-up), and the only possible way to stop them would be an invasion of Russia (In case it wasn't clear, this is exactly what I want to happen if Russia uses even a single nuke). Just, please don't be so determined to be 'right' that the one time you're wrong in the worst possible way, you would rather be apathetic than respond appropriately.

[@NLTops]

Great video. One point I might add is that nukes have never been used on a tactical level (i.e. attempting to annihilate an army). If we look at the one time nuclear weapons were used in a conflict, they weren't used on soldiers. They were used on cities. And the goal wasn't to destroy the military, but rather to destroy the people's will to fight. I think IF Russia were to use them, they would use one on a major population center. With the same goal of demoralizing Ukraine. But I still don't think Russia will use them. It's one of the few acts Putin wouldn't be able to sell at home. No-one with a little bit of humanity would think of their country as "the good guys" in such a scenario. The only reason Japan in WW2 was viewed the way it was, was because practically the whole world was at war at the time and Japan was one of the main aggressors in that war. So when the bombs dropped, humanity saw it as a terrifying warning to avoid their future use at all costs. But if one were used today, especially against a non-nuclear state... it would be considered an act on par with the holocaust. Because people have been thinking about the consequences for a good 60 years.

[@雷-t3j]

Also, people and leaders basically thought of it as a "bigger bomb". The dangers of radiation were much less understood and appreciated, and for most people, overestimated.

[@Boatswain_Tam]

Welcome back. I take this vid as a sign of a full recovery?

[@EatMyShortsAU]

He made "a recover". He suffered from Hypovidemia. Hypo meaning low, vid meaning video, emia means presence in blood. Low video presence in blood.

[@thejinn99]

Oh you *literally* survived covid. Glad you're on your way to recovery. Weird, you're the second KZbinr I watch that has gotten sick. It's a good reminder that covid isn't entirely over and a modicum of caution is still warranted.

[@Mixcoatl]

The British and French didn't leave Suez because of the Soviet nuclear threat, but because the US decided to stab the UK and France in the back and threatened to cut off their oil supply if they didn't withdraw. The Soviets only made the threat when they realized the United States was genuinely against the Suez intervention, and was done simply to make themselves look good in the Middle East. It was never a serious threat, although the US should have treated it as such but didn't, hence why France decided to develop its own nuclear capability.

[@Jhon47807]

The US didnt backstab the UK and France. The US called them out on their bullshit.

[@ryanhinrichs7353]

Cringe Colonial Minor power Europeans vs chad anti imperialist superpowers

[@silverhost9782]

@@ryanhinrichs7353 'anti-imperialist' lmao, good one

[@connormclernon26]

@@ryanhinrichs7353 put anti-imperialist in quotations and then you’d get it right

[@jeromeace1282]

@@silverhost9782 eh, depends on which version of the word you're using (ie the one that basically means colonialism or that Marxist version where something something money extraction comes up). Tho if if you want to get technical you could call it anti colonialism, because outside of cases where they tried to go communist, the USA was generally p pro countries throwing off their imperial chains Baring stuff like us fruit companies roping the CIA into surpressing local populace anyways.

[@Goosestaf]

Maybe it’s worth a brief revisit based on developments in the last month… 💀

[@RiffZifnab]

Re-watching this today for no reason. /:

[@TimberwolfCY]

Love your stuff, as always. Glad you've beaten back Covid and are on the mend. Looking forward to the next one, but as always take care of yourself and keep rested! Thanks again.

[@lastry4you]

Now, for the first time since I started following this channel (and I watched all the previous videos on the topic of Ukraine), I find it baffling that you missed the chance to briefly discuss (or acknowledge) the fact that Ukraine willingly gave up 3d nuclear arsenal in the world in exchange for ... this war as it happens. For us Ukrainians, this war is often seen as a direct consequence of losing our nuclear arsenal and the protection it offers. Ukraine was and still is the only country to willingly give up such an asset and to suffer as the result of the weekend political and military strength that this decision brought. And the fact that after giving up the nuclear weapons Ukraine is now faced with a risk (however small and hypothetical it might be, but still) to be the target of a tactical nuclear strike is mindblowing to me. The world wanted nuclear states to give up their arms and now we are ever closer to a possible nuclear war than during the 1990-2020 period, oh the irony.

[@Joan-xy5wm]

Very underrated comment. Ukraine should have never given up their nukes. No nation will ever give up their nukes and cite Ukraine as the reason why.

[@alexmuenster2102]

Analogy: Your father is a "gun nut." A real, heavy-duty "gun nut." At the same time, your 13-year-old daughter is occasionally bullied on the school playground (milk money sometimes stolen, once even a bloody nose, etc.). Your father now DIES, leaving you his entire arsenal. School authorities promise to protect your daughter against further bullying if you have all the guns scrapped. You agree (but - crucially - FAIL to demand that the mechanisms for this protection be EXACTLY spelled out; e.g., you don't demand that, as a show of good faith, a couple of the notorious bullies be placed in temp. detention, that they be required to undergo counseling, that the ONE most-egregious bully be permanently expelled, etc.; you don't demand that you be given the school principal's private home number to call in case of "incidents;" you don't demand that your daughter be given permission to carry bear-spray; etc.). Instead, you simply say, "Okay: Melt all the guns down to slag!" Then, years later, there is a major incident where your daughter's bike gets trashed (2014 invasion of Crimea). School authorities say, "Tsk, tsk" and "Tut, tut!" - but no action is taken ("Bike is, after all, already trashed - nothing can be done!"). Do you regret scrapping your father's assault-style AK-47s?! NO! They wouldn't have prevented the bullying / destruction of the bike. BUT... You DO regret having failed to extract ASSURANCES! So now, you send your daughter to judo classes. Come 2022, and the bullies attack your daughter again - very seriously! Do you regret having scrapped your father's bazookas? NO! They wouldn't have helped (EXCEPT as a deterrence! No bullies attack a girl carrying a bazooka! But carrying a bazooka is a BIG responsibility, costs money for maintenance and so forth. Is awkward at the school prom!). So your daughter knocks one of the bullies unconscious, gives another a black eye - but is herself also wounded (bloody nose, torn dress, cracked rib, smashed spectacles, sprained wrist). Understand now?

[@BravoNineThreeTwo]

Maintaining an effective nuclear capability is unspeakably expensive. You don't get to just keep the missiles and hope they'll work when needed. It's not an unreasonable comment, but there's no scenario where post-cold war Ukraine would ever have been able to maintain and sustain such a capability.

[@Joan-xy5wm]

@@alexmuenster2102 Lesson: If you make an agreement with someone who is untrustworthy, they will break the agreement. Therefore, "mechanisms" and "assurances" are worthless. You must have deterrence or strength.

[@daviddonnenfield672]

In exchange for giving up their nuke capability, the U.S., the U.K. and Russia guaranteed Ukraine's security in a 1994 agreement known as the Budapest Memorandum. Clearly, the latter country isn't restrained by that agreement, but the U.S. and U.K. have a standing commitment to Ukraine in the event of a nuclear attack by Russia. That would seem to be a significant deterrent to Russia's use of tactical nukes since both the U.S. and the U.K. have strongly aligned with Ukraine in public and in policy. So Russia, Don't Do It.

[@MrSneakyGunz]

11:42 As an American, I can tell you nothing shown to date produces fear. Shows desperation, as well as perhaps some fear on the side of the Russians(Putin). He continues to do as he pleases with the everlasting threat of Nuclear weapons. I firmly believe he'll continue this behavior as long as he's permitted to do so.

[@ДенисКалиниченко-з1к]

I would like to point out something interesting. When I was a teenager, I was sitting in Vkontakte and was subscribed to some large pro-weapons group (mainly guns). And I remember seeing Sarmat delivery system advertised in some photographed brochure with all 'cool' info about it. Several weeks ago I saw that news about its FIRST test launch. So, what is interesting here, you might ask? They were advertising Sarmat as READY TO DEPLOY in 2010 in that brochure. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it too long to develop some ICBM for 10+ years while having 50+ years of preexisted experience and technologhy in doing so?

[@FelisImpurrator]

Ready to delay lmao

[@robertsneddon731]

The Sarmat is a modern replacement for an existing silo-based "heavy" missile (the R36M/SS-18 NATO name "Satan") and its development has been stretched as expensive weapons development programs tend to. It's also likely that there will be a lot fewer Sarmats deployed than the hundreds-strong Soviet-era R36M/SS-18 fleet, possibly as few as thirty.

[@mso2013]

Depends on what part of it is new.

[@ДенисКалиниченко-з1к]

@@robertsneddon731 My point was: if we were talking about devices with aerospace grade reliability - is there any sense to build 30 (I am taking here your number) of such devices if they had their test launch only recently? As for me, to build such quantity is a challenge in itself cost-wise without even mentioning the absence of valuable data needed (such as test launches) for making such decision

[@kamikaziking]

thats why SARMAT-2 is deployable now......at least try to be a better troll.....

[@davidcayll]

Wow, I was impressed about how well this analysis has held up, especially when I looked at the post date. Five months afterwards and Putin has continued down this predictable road. The only thing that's getting old is about Putin's "Off Ramp" since he clearly does not want any alternative way out. He will have only total victory or total defeat, and if this analysis is right it will be the latter, at least that is my hope. Great video.