No, Russia Won't Use Nukes in Ukraine - Post-Cold War DOCUMENTARY

[@balticpagan1495]

Lets hope this video never ages like milk

[@Goodmans93]

Alot of Similar men said the same before the war.

[@rustomkanishka]

If it does humanity won't have to worry about it.

[@RenanMendes-zd8hj]

It will

[@concept5631]

​@@rustomkanishka The survivors will

[@servantofgod5642]

This video is as bogus as vile sour milk.

[@romanianturk2101]

Russia using nuclear weapons in the war in ukraine is a national contradiction of its justification

[@terskataneli6457]

Do you actually think Putin gives the slightest shit about russian or international law😂😂😂 Only reason he needs an excuse in anything is because of russian citizens' support and they will eat up all of his lies

[@nekomakhea9440]

"escalating to de-escalate" is like "fucking for celibacy"

[@SatanicBunny666]

It should be noted though that Russia is not the only country that maintains such a doctrine. The french have a position similar to that, although obviously it's much more limited and with a clear purpose: they maintain that if existence of France is threatened, they can essentially fire a nuke pre-emptively (at a military target) as a kind of a warning shot to deter any further action. This is part of their new nuclear doctrine, which they updated around 2009 or so. Though, if you look at this from a purely game-theory point of view, it becomes quite clear what the purpose of the French doctrine actually is, and it's pretty smart. The french nuclear arsenal is relatively small, so they cannot ""win"" an ICBM exchange with a major nuclear power such as Russia. However, what the doctrine does (and it's pretty clear it's aimed directly at Russia) is that by effectively saying 'we can fire first if we're threatened' it blocks out any hypothetical attempt to capture or conquer France by conventional means for Russia. Basically, in the extremely unlikely hypothetical scenario in which Russian troops somehow got underway to try and march for to France, they'd get nuked and then the Russians would have the option of either turning back or retaliating with nukes. thereby ending the world, a lose-lose scenario. The force of de-escalation of such a policy then, is not actually the nuke being launched, but the fact that Russia knows it cannot even consider a conventional invasion without existential risk. So yeah, when Putin says it (as always) it's bullshit saber-rattling, but that's not to say the concept itself is quite as nonsensical as it first seems.

[@pwp8737]

not the analogy you want to make given the number of sex scandals in the RC church by priests supposedly chaste.

[@raptorcell6633]

While it sounds silly, it makes some sense with some context. These days Mutually Assured Destruction is in increasingly coming into question, during the Cold War both the Warsaw Pact and NATO had plans for limited nuclear exchanges. So the Russian strategy would go something like this. The West does something to provoke the Russians -> Russia warns the West to back down or else -> the West ignores such warnings because let's be honest, who cares about Russia's Saber rattling? -> Russia launches a limited nuclear strike to show they aren't playing around -> Either the West backs down or MAD gets put to the test. Not saying it's a good strategy, hell no, but there is a little logic to it.

[@ВладиславВладислав-и4ю]

chamberlen, you?

[@justjoking5841]

Imagine a fundraising drive "sex for celibates"

[@katanabluejay]

I really hope this video doesn't age poorly ...

[@badluck5647]

“Yes, I think that Vladimir Putin must also understand that the Atlantic alliance is a nuclear alliance.” - French Foreign Minister Putin would not survive an attack on three nuclear powers.

[@Ghastly_Grinner]

The Russian people would survive but the Russian state wouldn't but then again neither would the French state German state etc

[@badluck5647]

@@Ghastly_Grinner Putin doesn't care about the Russian people. His own survival, wealth, and legacy are his priorities.

[@dax354able]

Assuming NATO would retaliate for ukr? Are they ready for MAD for nation not in their alliance? They barelay helping by sending weapons not enough

[@Ghastly_Grinner]

@@dax354able nato basically sent everything they have they are tapped out

[@brianfox771]

I would argue that the west via NATO could retaliate against a Russian nuclear strike without needing to use nuclear weapons themselves, with quite devastating effects.

[@elmerkilred159]

"Russia would never invade the Ukraine. The build up is just training." 24 February 2022 Russia invades Ukraine for a special three day operation. (670 days later...)

[@ТопчубекНурдинов-в6ж]

Who said about 3 day operation?

[@pedropalotes7638]

​@@ТопчубекНурдинов-в6жUS general Milley

[@rossscott7260]

I agree with your conclusions for the same reasons why you pointed out in the video. My anxiety says: "Really hope this doesn't turn out to be one of those ironic-in-hindsight things."

[@DK-ei4ed]

So US will use nukes when they want but Russia wont use nukes. Yeah sure. 15 seconds in he explained that he is a propagandist only here to brain wash stupid people. Did you miss that?

[@ratko4226]

What he claims is a complete bullshit. "It is likely that some generals woud disobey". Please watch some serious person. Lex Fridman invited Mearsheimer recently.

[@Nauda999]

it can not turn into one of these ironic-in-hindsight things, because everyone will be dead, there won't be any hindsight.

[@DK-ei4ed]

@@Nauda999 I take it you didn't notice all the billionaires building massive bunkers to house a city lol. And if thats what the millionaires/billionaires are doing, imagine what the trillionaires are doing.

[@Nauda999]

@@DK-ei4ed I can only imagine since I am not a millionaire/billionaire not even a trillionaire. I can only try to imagine. That said these small bunkers are joke they would be good during WWII, not now or any time in past 60 years. And big bunkers cost billions, and just think about all the water/food and fuel you need to live in a bunker for 10 years, the amounts are insane, not to mention regular fuel goes bad after like 2 years, so you need some special fuel and huge storage for it.

[@unnaturalselection8330]

They're slowly winning. To put it in football terms, "Why would they throw a Hail Mary when they're ahead, have the ball and can just keep running it up the other team's gut?"

[@coops1992]

Who? Russia? Even if they lost they would never admit it and would still keep attacking and shelling.

[@TheBigExclusive]

​​@@coops1992- It's a matter of finances. Ukraine is able to defend themselves because Western countries are giving them money, weapons, and military aid. But that money will eventually run out. The USA just announced they aren't sure if they are going to give anymore suppprt to Ukraine. Russia is much bigger and could just wait it out until Ukraine is out of money and resources.

[@pgr3290]

Define winning in the context of this war. Russia's somewhat vague definitions and publicly stated goals before the war were: NATO must retreat, Ukraine must be de-militarized and de-nazified. NATO has expanded and NATO countries are woken up to the fact they need to commit more to defence. Ukraine's military is now probably the most powerful in Europe, and for the past two years has shown it is close to a match for Russia's ground forces hence the largely static frontlines. An unthinkable situation just five years ago, you would have been laughed at if you suggested Ukraine could resist like this. As for the last goal it was never politically nazified to begin with when the war started. On these conditions there is no real basis to say Russia is winning, even slowly. What Russia is doing is gaining a few metres of territory every day, by sacrificing enormous amounts of money, materiel and men. At such a rate they might gain 25 or even 50 kilometres this year, but that does not defeat Ukraine or militarily threaten the Ukrainian government in Kyiv 500 kilometres away. These slow rates of Russian progress and high loss of resources are unsustainable beyond 2024 and will not lead to a decisive Russian victory or reaching the original goals stated.

[@unnaturalselection8330]

@@pgr3290 Winning as in Ukraine's running out of bodies to throw in the fire. It's purely mathematical and Ukraine sped up the process dramatically with the NATO dictated failed offensive; they probably should have matched the Russian defense in depth instead and let them tire themselves out. Oh well. So my concern is that they end up losing their coastline and/or becoming a puppet in retaliation. You're absolutely correct that NATO grew and Europe became far more of a threat, which expands Putin's need for a bigger pound of flesh. If they get bled white and/or there's a major breakthru before an off ramp is found, this debacle could turn easily Ukraine into Moldova 2.0.

[@pgr3290]

​@@unnaturalselection8330 Ukraine haven't mobilized anyone under 27 years of age at this point. In theory they could mobilize another half a million men if they were truly desperate and this worsened considerably, a massive number. Most realistic casualty estimates show Ukraine losing a similar amount of soldiers per head of male population as Russia, and they'll be spending most of this year on the defensive which reduces their casualty figures further compared to Russia. Ukraine has spent months now building up the kind of defences you suggested. Why else do you think the lines are mostly static and Russia STILL cannot break into Avdiivka despite throwing everything at it? This is a nothing town a hundred kilometres from anywhere truly important where the loss might seriously hurt Ukraine politically. At that rate of attrition if anyone runs out of soldiers I would say it'll be Russia, because they can't continue these assaults without another mass mobilization. Politically Putin may not survive such a move, the first wave was so incredibly unpopular in Russia. On paper Russia could try and recruit another 500k, but inside Russia touching sheltered middle classes it would not fly...

[@HE-pu3nt]

Your statement that any nuclear strike would leave the target area uninhabitable is wrong. A surface burst of a 250kt bomb would do what you say, but, this type of strike wouldn't be in russia's interests. A much more likely strike would be an air burst. A 250kt weapon detonating at say 6000ft, would lift its fallout to well over 35,000ft. It would be lethal to anyone without cover out to a radius of 5 miles. But if your in a dugout, with overhead protection, then it would be lethal out to just a 1000 yards. Also, unlike a surface burst, the fallout from an airburst doesn't mix with condensing earth and rock, vaporised by the fireball. This means that the fallout particles are microscopic, and therefore take weeks and months to fall back to earth. Radiation in fallout decays extremely quickly. It starts out at, 0 hours - 100% 7 hours - 10% 49 hours - 1% 343 hours - 0.1% So in a little over 2 weeks only 1/1000 of the radiation remains. With the hazard being mixed into the atmosphere, the area of fallout would be huge, but the amount of fallout in any one place would be barely detectable. Apart from that little point, this was a great video! Lots of love from the UK.

[@bendafyddgillard]

this is mostly reassuring, thank you. "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." The gap I can see is if Putin believes Russia (or he) is doomed anyway and takes the so-called "Samson Option".

[@TheTrueAdept]

That is only if the player is _semi-rational_ so he's not likely to see that. MAD requires a semi-rational mind at the minimum...

[@elimanning6520]

If you dont think putin is sane or even intelligent then you are a fool who has no clue about russia at all ​@TheTrueAdept

[@pedropalotes7638]

​@@TheTrueAdeptif any semi-rational politic existed in "the West" we wouldnt be here, in the 60s in Cuba there was a situation close to the one in Ukraine and ended in a diplomatic deal, but now ended in a war where USA and Europe are and say they arent and with a propaganda too pathetic that tells us at same time Russia is too weak and if we dont stop them in Ukraine they'll reach Lisbon

[@TheTrueAdept]

@@pedropalotes7638 oh look, a vadnik. The sad truth is that the West is being semi-rational, not Russia.

[@pedropalotes7638]

@@TheTrueAdept rational says, see the stupid propaganda we are seeing each day and you'll see our politicians think we are as idiot as them

[@Exjewatlarge]

You said “no one wants to die in a nuclear apocalypse,” except that’s part of the eschatology for millions of religious fundamentalists of various flavors.

[@thanasisrks4944]

But wouldn't a NATO attack on Russia simply bring a nuclear or not response on nato itself? They could even give nukes to Iran or Cuba too.

[@John_Pace]

The biggest threat is the accidental escalation, not the deliberate attacks.

[@DK-ei4ed]

You think Ukraine & CIA carrying out terrorist attacks on civilian population in Russia is not a threat? You are an idiot.

[@CanadaMMA]

This video should be titled "No, Russia doesn't plan to use nukes." There is a war going on, and we have examples in history of how simple mistakes can cause chaos in a war room. Imagine if some of those near misses had happened with today's backdrop? We can't forget how there is still a major war going on.

[@howilearned2stopworrying508]

do you really think the only reason nukes haven't been exchanged in anger over all these years is human reason, restraint, and goodness? The fact is they are duds and the government knows it, but they have to keep up the facade that they are the highest authority on earth and no one can trump their infantile national sovereignty 👽

[@Lejeron]

The last i saw the title ”no, russia wont invade ukraine” it aged so badly it grew mold on it. I’m afraid to watch this video because of the similar title😥

[@manugamer9984]

4:46 basically that’s like forcing someone to play a board game while keeping a shotgun ready in case the opponent wins… fair play?

[@thomasvandevelde8157]

What's that transceiver schematic doing in the background at 14:41? Which type is it? I'm curious! It's a Soviet schematic.

[@ranaldhooper5997]

Something you forgot to include, is that any use of a nuke, directed toward the west by russia would cause nuclear fallout to land in russia, due to the Earth's rotation.

[@dianapuskina3448]

modern nuclear weapon ie thermonuclear air blast ~500 ktn are very clean. fallout can be neglected

[@TheMercilessEye]

@@dianapuskina3448 And just how many russian nukes are 'modern' and how many are 'legacy'...?

[@eriks.9730]

Never say never.

[@dianapuskina3448]

@@TheMercilessEye all of them. in 90th most leagacy warheads was sold to USA by Eltsin goverment

[@Ghastly_Grinner]

Depends on where the wind is blowing but yeah

[@jasonhaman4670]

But... how can I press the bell button inside a nuclear storage bunker? Oh nevermind, the nuclear bunker's door code was 1234.

[@Nick-yz9fd]

EMPs change the calculous at all? If Russia EMP'd Kiev, would the world respond the same way if it had been nuked what if the NATO was attacked similarly? ...Also, this fails to consider multiple countries acting in concert. WWIII, as everyone calls it, would necessarily involve the world, would it not?

[@juricatomicic4829]

I hope you are right. IMO, other thing that gives me some hope is seeing how politicians acted during covid. I doubt they would have patience to sit 'that' long in atomic shelters.

[@DK-ei4ed]

Meanwhile trillionaires and billionaires are constantly working on making massive city-like bunkers and US is already using a nuclear component (depleted uranium) on Russian soil and future Russian soil or what was and should have remained neutral or pro russian but by no means pro yankee terrorist. Ukraine's nazi terrorists will lose and US will have to answer and pay for all the damage.

[@Bdog40]

Only thing I disagree is that America will never risk a nuclear conflict with Russia over Ukraine. I'm gonna trigger a lot of people but stay with me. Geographically speaking ukraine is not a American ally but more of a stick (asset). And I'm sure as hell don't believe US is gonna do major nuclear conflict over a stick.

[@thebalticpower2301]

Yeah but If Putin uses a nuke in Ukraine NATO will go to war with Russia still, just not Nuclear.

[@FC-qe1wl]

That is in the real world. However Biden wants war anywhere and will probably use a nuke against the USA if needed. The president is delusional and needs to be removed..

[@Maverick0451]

This is brilliant coverage of an eerily relevant issue. Bravo for this important briefing on the current state of affairs with the Russian nuclear arsenal!! The Cold War is in fact quite hot again unfortunately.

[@DK-ei4ed]

This is yankee propaganda. 15 seconds into this video that much is exposed when he called Russian invasion of Ukraine unprovoked, more like they had no other choice because they gave diplomacy a chance for 8 years and it's clear that you can't do diplomacy with the west, ruled by trillionaire oligarchs who are too stupid to realize when they have lost. It's like when palpatine was check mated by mace windu in star wars :D the US is all like nooo nooooo YOOOUUU WIILLL DIEE so this is what crawled out of nazi germany's ass.

[@TheSMR1969]

Thanks to the USA

[@ratko4226]

No, the conclusion is horrible. Claiming that some generals would disobey is a ridiculous claim.

[@TheSMR1969]

@@ratko4226 absolutely, especially when they are drilled into it, like how USA does. This video is mostly just speculation tbh

[@ThatGuyWhoLivesinChina]

Well done, David. I like the new format.

[@alacazaba]

It is a mistake to believe nukes are not valid. First of all, we in the West are wrong to assume the Russians weigh the costs just like strategists in the West, that the Russians are operating with the same sentiment and information of those in the West who would consider any nuclear use. Russia does not operate this way. Russia is willing to sacrifice 500000 of its soldiers (2025 projected estimate per RF statements), obviously their loss/win/risk calculations are very different from ours. Nuke use may not turn out well for the Russians, and that is beside the point. Russia need only believe that it can gamble with nukes and pull it off, and that it has the depth or foresight and strategy that will allow it to weather retaliation. Nato may say it will push Russia out of Ukraine, but it only remains for Russia to believe that NATO won't go far enough in doing so. Currently, Ukraine has no treaty obligated defense partners. Russia knows that the West will supply money and hardware and other support up to a certain threshold. One scenario sees Russia gamble that nukes could be done strategically and overwhelmingly in Ukraine - much like the invasion was supposed to be - which will give it the upper hand, and the west, having no troops in country and largely unaffected, will not overwhelmingly erase Russian forces, Russia knows well that the West fears Russian desperation currently, and so retaliation will very likely only proceed to a certain point. If Russia is able to get segments of it's military deep enough in country quick enough, it could also make it difficult for NATO to respond without harming civilians. A swift nuke strike on the capital, Lviv, a few other cities, and military targets could be a way to do this (in Russia's estimation), allowing Russia to believe it could easily control the corridor of land to Transnistria after a nuke campaign and then hold on. Russia is not pursuing this war without goals. It will shift the tools and techniques it uses to get to those goals in a manner amenable to current or expected conditions. The nuke saber is being rattled, partly because it keeps the West at bay, partly (in my estimation) so that Russia can calibrate conditions for their use.

[@baneofbanes]

They aren’t valid. That’s been agreed by international law. NATO has already stated they will not accept use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

[@alacazaba]

@@baneofbanes it was illegal for Russia to invade Ukraine, there's also an international arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin for crimes against children. Has either of these stopped or even slowed Russia? No, Russia does not play by our rules, it also has no problems killing civilians in large numbers, it also has no problems sending hundreds and thousands of its men to die for a few metres of territory. If it sees an opening to use nukes, it will use them, especially as the war continues apace and it seems less and less likely that they can obtain their goals with conventional means.

[@coops1992]

Russia still serve their master China so they will never openly use nukes.

[@JDDC-tq7qm]

​@@baneofbanesso what will NATO do attack Russia then NATO gets attacked by nuke from Russia we all die 😂😂

[@baneofbanes]

NATO attacking Russia is a very large deterrent to keep Russia from launching nukes. Russia would not win a nuclear war and they know thy.

[@chrissanchez2998]

I learned a lot from watching your videos I enjoy your history

[@DK-ei4ed]

15 seconds into this video he exposed himself as a yankee propagandist. You inhaled a bunch of diarrhea out of uncle sam's ass my friend, not wisdom.

[@TheHallucinati]

How do you know that what Kremlin told us about its strategic nuclear chain of command isn't 90% fabricated? That it's not "Maskirovka"? Also" I can skip one step for you: NATO launches conventional response. Kremlin sees the response but cannot ascertain if the missiles flying towards it are nuclear or not, and can't identify in time. Just NATO's "honest word" that they aren't nuclear. Hey, how did that honest word go last time?. Kremlin launches a strategic nuclear strike, Washington follows suit. Now we're not looking at the "End of The World" but a major interrupter switch for further development, and and a century-long hell on Earth for survivors and their descendants for sure. Here's one more side step: Chinese CPC sees a bunch of missile launches but cannot ascertain what their destination is yet. The response window is quickly closing. Only Washington's "honest word": " - We swear these missiles aren't meant for you" separates CPC from responding in kind "before the window of opportunity closes). Human apes become trigger happy in such circumstances, so these things can escalate much quicker, and become very tangled and messy, beyond what our ability for situational awareness is. Big, sloppy errors in judgement follow, and disaster is the likely outcome.

[@DanSoloha]

TL;DW: no, too much risk for too little gain

[@daveconrad6562]

The pharoah story in the bible is basically the hubris of these men in high office

[@cesarespinozaspain]

vlad has strategically moved himself into a corner. If he authorities even one tactical strike, then the gloves are off, Either A. NATO forces enter Ukraine to push out russian forces. or B. A massive conventional strike occurs in russia proper. NATO wont escalate into a nuclear exchange, only vlad could, the world except Iran and North Korea would be against russia , not even China could support this act. The only way vlad could save face is to accept the conventional NATO counter strike as an fair exchange and leave Ukraine. He's already lost the war since his conventional military has been bled dry, and could not withstand a NATO invasion. His only option and viable weapon / deterrent is nuclear. If vlad uses a nuke then Russia becomes North Korea 2.0 However if a 3rd party were to detonate a nuclear weapon and vlad had a "way to deny it" "terrorists" (insert russian funded group here) well that's another can of radioactive worms.

[@bsadewitz]

I'm not any sort of expert, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the strategy is just to continue throwing soldiers into the meat grinder for as long as he has to, hoping that the governments of the west--because they are actually accountable to their populations in some way--decide that the political/economic costs are too high to continue, or that the west keeps tapering down the amount of aid they give them. I don't think there'd be a way to pin it on some other group--because where did that group get the nuke from ... ? Which other nuclear-armed state has an interest in providing such a terrorist group with a nuke? They're all Russian allies, lol.

[@1981dlambert]

I’m happy you incorporated some nuke puns at end!

[@ErikRoot]

If Russia uses Nuclear weapons of any kind. Even if used on Kyiv they must know what the Chernobyl disaster has brought to the region. Does Moscow want more of a Chernobyl disaster on or near their own soil. I doubt it . They probably would not use them in Finland, Norway,or Sweden.If used it would br the end of Russia for sure. And possibly the end of the world. It's ridiculous the things we fight over, territory, resources, religion, and money are the driving force behind every war ever fought. With Russia reduced to a skeleton army defending itself how would they retaliate against NATO

[@JDDC-tq7qm]

Russian submarines and bombers would wipe NATO of the map Russia also has a retaliation device called dead hand so even if the Russian state is destroyed the Russian nukes would still fire from the silos nato will surely not win a nuclear war with Russia

[@restaurantattheendofthegalaxy]

David this is very well done, the animation is particularly cool! As for the Russians using nuclear weapons, I think it’s wise to assume that half of their weapons systems will likely malfunction or will miss their targets by miles. The other half will hit something we’d rather keep around. If they hit a NATO country with a nuclear weapon it’s unfortunately game on.

[@ares8866]

Are you kidding lol. You who don't even know what nuclear weapons are. And you missed the fact that Russia has changed a large part of its nuclear arsenal lol. Half of such experts as you thought that the Russians would not attack Ukraine, and the other half thought of destroying Russia with sanctions. Now you claim that Russian nuclear weapons are not working 🤣🤣🤣.

[@SeptikAvenger]

I'm so sick of seeing this stupid argument made over and over. "Lol, their nukes won't work." IDK they seem to be getting a lot of their missiles to work lately, they hit my hometown frequently.

[@JBullock54]

@@ares8866& Half of you such experts said we were on the brink of WW3 since February of 2022 😂. Where’s it at??? I’m waiting! Where are the nukes at??

[@ares8866]

@@JBullock54 Who said we were on the brink of WW3. Why, Ukraine 🤣🤣🤣. Even if the Russians use it in Ukraine, there will be no ww3 lol. You got the experts mixed up 🤣.

[@restaurantattheendofthegalaxy]

@@SeptikAvenger I get it, and I’m sorry to hear that. But radar guided land attack cruise missiles or S-300 missiles tuned to hit a particular grid location are a far less complicated beast than landing an MRBM or ICBM in the right place then hoping it will go off with the right yield. The circular area of probability for a Soviet nuke used to be miles wide, now it’s smaller but if their missiles are maintained like their submarines, tanks & aircraft, it’s a decent bet that nobody is changing out the parts of their thermonuclear (hydrogen) weapons that degrade over time (which they do like Deuterium & Tritium generators and just regular lithium batteries & capacitors). Russia can’t get it together to field more than 20 5th gen fighters (Su-57) or the much hyped T-14 Armada, & they’re digging T-55 & T-62 tanks out of storage to fight Ukraine. The Russian navy has lost 19 nuclear submarines in the same amount of time that the US lost USS Thresher & USS Scorpion. They have the smarts, clearly but fail to implement them. So based on that set of facts, yep I’d say the Russians are reduced strategic threat because of their 7500 deployed nuclear weapons, many are very likely in a degraded condition.

[@jansenart0]

We need to learn as much about Rosatom as possible.

[@olgajoachimosmundsen4647]

David, can you make a video on the power of Moscow and it's influence during the time if the USSR? I think this could be even a series

[@francoluissotomayor5521]

Hope not

[@LegoLordPro]

Pretty sure we can collectively agree that no one would want to live in a real life fallout world.

[@caseclosed9342]

General Petraeus kept his pants on long enough to say that? 😂

[@joudan]

I would discard Putin's claim about not using nukes, as it comes from the person who said Russia is not going to attack Ukraine or there will be no mobilisation in Russia. I would also not factor in any concern Russian military leadership will have about soldiers/territories being exposed to radiation - they don't care. Also, the chance of pawns in the chain to sabotage the nuclear strike order is overstated. Because the negative selection over decades turned them into a crowd of faceless goons who will adhere to any order given. With that said, should the West slow down and try not to tease Putin? No. Falling for his games of posing as a nuclear swashbuckler and a peace seeker simultaneously will be the modern equivalent of Munich Betrayal.

[@HE-pu3nt]

I think it would go like this. Putin: fire the missiles! Some KGB/FSB dude pulls out a pistol "bang bang", putin gets double tapped. And putin knows it.

[@Zech84]

please age well please age well please age well.

[@questionablebackyardmeows]

Speaking of Russian propagandists, you have a few bots spamming it up in the comments. Good video, though :)

[@howilearned2stopworrying508]

have you found the Irqi WMDs yet?

[@questionablebackyardmeows]

Iraq was a war crime, there were no WMD, and I'm not a conservative, I hate the US as much as I hate Russia @@howilearned2stopworrying508

[@graceneilitz7661]

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are a bot. I was called one by pointing out the ramifications of a no fly zone, and saying that almost no one would want to deal with the consequences.

[@mengshun]

Absolutism in regional/global politics and military ops is a dangerous concept to apply. And as governement leaders (including the military) tend to be led by people with sociopathic, egotistical tendencies - doubly so. Weapons are meant to be used and that mentality always must always be kept in mind. Humans are a warring species. Anything goes if there is a perceived gain or revenge. The perceived idea of questionable Russian tech is not one to base a stategy around. One of the reasons Russia keeps so many weapons around is to compensate exactly for that. That is their mentaility. They can easily swarm targets knowing only one MIRV has to land its playload. Hezbollah and Israel's Iron Dome proves the point of the need to swarm as well - accuracy counts less as less accurate ones merely act as decoys. Also consider Ukraine is considered in the Russian sphere of influence in much of the world. US/NATO had no qualms nuking West Germany in the event of a Soviet invasion and from a realpolitik perspective got little blow back on that approach. Same general concept here. And yes, Ukraine should be independent and free to join NATO. But the reality is that is clearly a US/EU position and not widely shared globally. And with BRICS rapdily forming a formidable colaition, nuclear options are quite viable.

[@LS-oq3qh]

Vladimir Solovyov looks like Jon Voight.

[@L0dG]

I can confirm, I don't want to die in a nuclear war either.

[@hilarymubanga2070]

Excuse me! "Unprovoked war?"

[@angheloiumarius]

Hei Romania (My county) it's not a a Russian friendly power like Hungary.

[@thomasmyers9128]

We don’t support Nazi….. is the same as not supporting Russia….

[@niklasnorberg5071]

That threat is over now, what we in the west does when missiles and shells dries up is another question.

[@djcata7474]

Great video, and GREAT MUSIC, congrats!

[@ИмяФамилия-ж2л6ы]

ahhahaha tnx mom

[@mayoite160]

Not entirely sure about "unprovoked" TBF. NATO should either have remained static, dissolved or admitted Moscow like they did in the G7/G8

[@anno-fw7xn]

why? why shuld ukrain care what russa wants?

[@mayoite160]

@@anno-fw7xn the same reason why i'm sitting in bangladesh but still need to care about what governments in london and washington and paris etc etc etc say about our internal politics and economic affairs: geopolitical might makes right. & for that matter wtf did ukraine have to let bill clinton force them to surrender their nukes back in 1991? that was their biggest ever mistake as a nation

[@anno-fw7xn]

you dint answer the question why shuld urkain care what russan want? they are a indpent nationen and russa can make a fit anc cry but this give tham ther right to murder tham, a provkation would have bin a attack on russa or stealing ther land or or or all did not happen! and if they dint surender they nuke in the 1991 they would have done with on of the russan Upede leader in ukrain in the 2000s.@@mayoite160

[@ewfisher89]

Considering almost all of the experts had said Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine right before the war began, I'm not going to rule out the possibility of them using a nuke.

[@DrVictorVasconcelos]

Yeah, it's honestly cringy how people picture every single opponent as the stereotypical children's animation villain. No attempt whatsoever to have a rational picture of them, their goals and motivations. The only real risk is temporary insanity.

[@snuggles03]

Thank you that was an extremely interesting and well presented video. I shall be a new subscriber

[@jlvfr]

The proplem is not the sanity of their use, it's the sanity of Putin...

[@Hillbilly001]

And there is that.

[@nikosnikos652]

please go back under the rock you live in.

[@Ghastly_Grinner]

Russia is winning there is no need to launch nukes

[@zuperdee]

EXACTLY! Never underestimate the capacity of irrational leaders to do irrational things. Leaders in ANY arena have to be recruited from the human race, and regardless of the means of their selection, one cannot assume they will always be rational.

[@TheTrueAdept]

To be honest... we're not dealing with a semi-rational actor here (which is the basic requirement for MAD to work). We're dealing with a very _ravachinist_ (and thus _not_ even semi-rational) actor, with someone who isn't, to quote a mockumentary, not playing with a full deck. Given that reality has been either saying 'hold my beer' to fiction or stealing fiction's notes, we can't simply say that Russia _won't_ use nukes entirely; now, sure, but not entirely.

[@ratko4226]

Putin is a perfectly rational person. But you may not be. Ask yourself, you are watching this channel filled by western propaganda, but not world leading experts on International relations such as Mearsheimer.

[@alek9195]

Oh boy Putin is very smart and rational actor. You just don't understand the game.

[@TheTrueAdept]

@@alek9195 ravachinism is *_inheritally_* irrational. Read up on how crazy France went before WW1.

[@graceneilitz7661]

False. Putin is rational, even if you don’t understand his thought process. You don’t become the dictator of the largest country on earth without being smart cruel, and rational.

[@RomeGod177]

Now i got that song suck in my head. " It's the end of the world as we know it. Its the end of the world as we know it. But we be fine". 😂😂😂😂

[@inabsentia439]

You failed to talk about Putin's transfer of nukes to Belarus. Putin could order the launch those and deny involvement.

[@baneofbanes]

Belarus doesn’t have any control over those burns, they’re just stationed in Belarus.

[@frankymorales5647]

Letting Russian troops use Belarus as a staging ground has been the absolute extent that Lukashenko is willing to get Belarus physically involved in the war. He’s terrified of losing his power. I doubt he’d change his mind over night and immediately go for the doomsday option. Even IF the nukes in Belarus were to be launched, the entire world would know in SECONDS that it’s Putin’s doing.

[@graceneilitz7661]

It’s the same arrangement as the US nuke sharing program. Even if it’s pointless because of Kaliningrad. I would like it if people do research before saying absurd things.

[@rkak15]

Can we really discount the fact that Putin is kind of crazy?

[@Cba409]

But they will in Poland. The banks better watch the F out. Then again what do they care about Poland or its people.

[@theawesomeman9821]

I hope you're right

[@hansonlee5847]

Looks like Russian tankies are here to conduct a "special military operations" in the comments section 😂

[@michaelporzio7384]

Nations will deploy nuclear weapons when faced with a real (or perceived) existential threat. Israel was fully prepared to use nukes when faced with such a threat in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The USA was prepared to use nukes during the Cuban Missile Crisis and during the Korean War. Russia will not tolerate NATO forces (and their nukes) being deployed in Ukraine. This is a red line that the West has refused to acknowledge. Thanks for the great content, David and Happy New Year to you and TCW community.

[@bsadewitz]

It doesn't have to be explicitly acknowledged (to the public) because it isn't on the menu. Russia and US/NATO aren't going to war with each other. They have proxies, just like old times, lol.

[@questionablebackyardmeows]

go away, Kremlin bot

[@bsadewitz]

​@@questionablebackyardmeows Lolol, it's like "Russia will not tolerate NATO forces being deployed in Ukraine. This is a red line the west has refused to acknowledge." Umm, really? Because I'm fairly confident that isn't happening, hasn't happened, and no one wants it to happen. I'm not sure what kremlinbot wants as an acknowledgement. "The US was prepared to use nukes during the Cuban missile crisis." Umm, yeah, but so was the USSR--that's why it was the "Cuban Missile Crisis" (?) There's this thing this kremlinbot doesn't seem to understand: Ukraine isn't Russia.

[@mabellee1511]

@@questionablebackyardmeows go away, Nafo bot

[@questionablebackyardmeows]

I meow, not bark@@mabellee1511

[@Mr_Stav]

Is this the first chanel video presenting Putin as a sane actor?

[@ShoehornBundy]

Ha ha, Russia left the nuclear treaty and tested one nuclear rocket. It crashed.

[@factsdontcareaboutyourfeel7204]

Too close to russia to use nukes

[@Josep_Hernandez_Lujan]

This is the country that burned down its own capital rather than see it occupied...

[@sheesh4488]

Tactical?

[@leannevandekew1996]

Putin has notoriously ignored peace treaties. Why would you negotiate with him. The Budapest Memorandum is ironic here. Under the agreement, the signatories (Russia, Britain, USA) offered Ukraine "security assurances" in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and for Ukraine to surrender the Soviet era Nukes on their soil).

[@ultimateflyful]

you are brainwashed also, the minsk accords stated nato wouldn't encroach Russias borders. and it did. USA breaks treaties and ignores things all the time. We send our Ewaste to Ghana just watched a thing on it, which is completely illegal. We are not the good guys.

[@ares8866]

Putin has notoriously ignored peace treaties but the former German chancellor says that the peace agreements were just buying time for Ukraine to arm itself. The former president of Ukraine also said that 🤣.

[@leannevandekew1996]

@@ares8866 Nonsense from a parrot.

[@leannevandekew1996]

@@ares8866 Fake name: Hmm.

[@leannevandekew1996]

@@ares8866 No channel photo. Hmm.

[@abc_13579]

You gave four options for how Russia might use a nuclear weapon in its war against Ukraine and rejected them all. I think a fifth option is more likely: Russia may use a nuclear weapon to make parts of Ukraine uninhabitable. The primary reason Russia invaded Ukraine was to prevent NATO from expanding to Russia’s border. Having an uninhabitable buffer zone between Russia and a smaller Ukraine achieves this goal. Putin would, of course, prefer to expand Russia and settle Ukraine, but if he can't do that, he will certainly settle for making Eastern Ukraine uninhabitable. It will give him the buffer zone he wanted.

[@Numba003]

Hopefully all of this suffering and fighting will be over soon. Thank you for another thoughtful discussion video. God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)

[@UncleAlf1889]

It will be when the nazis are defeated.

[@pedropalotes7638]

Soon? Russians expect reach the Dniéper in 2026, thats not too soon

[@Numba003]

@pedropalotes7638 Thus the "hopefully." Hopefully the fighting stops rather than continuing before that point.

[@HE-pu3nt]

I don't believe in God's, though I wish I could, it must be nice sometimes. But I except your Blessing in the spirit it was sent. May you, and the one's you love, be happy and fulfilled.😊.

[@Numba003]

@HE-pu3nt Thank you very much for your kind reply even though we disagree on this. I wish you and yours all the very best as well, my friend. If you're interested in continuing our cordial discussion, may I ask why you feel you cannot believe in God?

[@pat8988]

Cold War; (6:28) 150-300 kilotons is “tactical”? I think you must mean tons, not kilotons. A bomb 20 times bigger than Hiroshima can’t be tactical, I hope.

[@Sicarius888]

It only makes sense if we were to believe these drunken gangsters can still think logically, and not about dragging rest of the world down to their own orcish level.

[@idrathernot_2]

Go to bed Nafo your huffing paint thinner again

[@howilearned2stopworrying508]

what was logical about occupying Afghanistan for 20 years? What was logical about getting rid of Saddam- setting the stage for ISIS and giving Iran greater political influence over Iraq?

[@emperoremperor1486]

All of this rests on the assumption that Putin or anyone in the Kremlin cares about Russia or the world or at least are logical about reality. I find that very unlikely to be the case considering the last 2 years of constant irrational idiocy.

[@bsadewitz]

But they do care about themselves.

[@jasonlib1996]

Putin does not care about his people. He does however cares a lot about his power. If his country is destroyed by nukes, Nato conventional forces, or internal coup or rebellion. He would no longer have the power he desires. you can always rely on a dictators own ego and desire for self preservation at all costs. he'll happily send as many Russians to the meat grinder as needed, however he'll never do anything that compromises his own position of power. or risk his own life. Contrary to popular belief Putin is not stupid, he's a power hungry dictator, but he's not stupid. he has spend decades building his position of power within Russia, restructuring government departments, removing opponents, using others as pawns to further his own goals and consolidating power. He knows exactly what he is doing. These nuclear threats are not for the governments or Nato, they can see the reality and can see past the posturing. The threats are for the public of those countries to reduce support for Ukraine and press for less involvement, less aid and for negotiations under terms that are favourable to Russia.

[@KitJBenn]

As long as you remember who the real custodians of war are. And you remember February 2014. Don't forget!! Ukraine is an illegal entity! Because of the February 2014 anti constitutional coup d'etat. They rejected their ballot box !! For weapons !! To resolve matter'! And I have to say! To date they are doing an awful job!! Please don't stop 🇷🇺❤️President Putin Sir ❤️🇷🇺 We ❤️Love ❤️ You.

[@coops1992]

Nah, they only see Russia, China and US on the map, anything else they could easily destroy or even nuke, UK included.

[@graceneilitz7661]

They care about themselves, never underestimate anyone’s selfishness.

[@lundsweden]

Its possible Russia could use shorter range, tactical nukes in Ukraine. This wouldn't start WW3 on its own, but would be a terrible humanitarian disaster as well as a dangerous move politically. I don't think Russia would be that stupid, but who knows? It has been part of Russian military doctrine since the late 90s to have this option: the escalate to deescalate strategy I think it was called. The U.S also once had this view, they even made little nukes that could be fired like a mortar in the 50s and 60s for localised battlefield use. The U.S wisely has left this dangerous idea behind (for now).

[@baneofbanes]

Any use of nuclear weapons would bring about a NATO response. No distinction of “tactical” nukes realistically exists.

[@lundsweden]

@@baneofbanes And how do you think NATO would respond? By launching its full arsenal of ICBMs? Unlikely IMO.

[@baneofbanes]

@@lundsweden as stated in the video, through conventional means. Very likely in the form of NATO air forces striking Russian military targets in Ukraine.

[@DK-ei4ed]

@@baneofbanes Depleted uranium is a nuclear componenet, dumb nuts

[@DK-ei4ed]

@@baneofbanes this video is yankee propaganda for brainwashed yankees. 15 seconds into the video and that much is exposed.

[@citizenVader]

Seems a little radical for a statue the size of a garden gnome.

[@qZbGmYjS4QusYqv5]

I remember certain experts on this same channel we predicting that Putin won't start the war. Let's hope this prediction will not fail

[@michaeldunham3385]

Who can predict what a mad man will do, all we can do is hope sanity prevails but naturally it doesn't always work out that way.

[@NameRiioz]

@@michaeldunham3385 If you're warned for 20 years and then you do it anyway, who's the crazy one here.

[@nikosnikos652]

maybe this "channel" is another neocon stooge piece of shit

[@michaeldunham3385]

@@NameRiioz are you seriously trying to suggest Ukraine doesn't have the right to self determination? Putin is literally destroying Russia and for what? So yeah in my opinion he is a mad man.

[@NameRiioz]

@@michaeldunham3385 Ukraine does what it considers necessary for its security. Russia is also doing what it considers necessary for its security. The world is such that if you don't want to have good relations and do only what you want, take into account that your decisions will have consequences.

[@poorfinnishpeasant911]

If London, Berlin and Washington DC are no more, then Moscow and Peking are no more too. rip to everyone.

[@svendtveskg5719]

Well, he has them, the nukes. Will he use them? Perhaps. Should we bow down to him because of that? No.

[@BrianAmuro-z2g]

It's possible, but why would Russia Nuke Ukraine? If putting does nuke Ukraine there will be areas in ultrasound that Russia can't use

[@seancidy6008]

The gist of this video is Russia is not s country of consequence and doesn't have to be taken seriously. If they are going to be faced with a choice of going nuclear _or_ being forced to withdraw from all Ukraine including Crimea (assuming the Kremlin considers maintaining their status as a great power to be paramount), then why wouldn't they detonate theatre thermonuclear weapon' on the battlefield? Would there be a devasting direct conventional retaliatory strike by the West (US) on a Russia that had already gone nuclear on Ukraine?; no there wouldn't, whatever they might say they danger of Russia using nukes on a US air fors strike would be too great. Russia does not need to worry about losing to Ukraine, at the moment, which is the only reason why it is currently unlikely they would do something desperate. And by the way, if nukes cannot recue a conventional situation why NATO doctrine was and is to use nuclear weapons to stop a Russian conventional attack succeeding? Russians seeing they were losing could do feel they had to so it, and surely Russians would cooperate to do it _if_ they needed to to maintain Russia's status. In other words it might not help them win, but even in defeat they would be a country that had to be taken seriously.

[@DK-ei4ed]

15 seconds into this video it is exposed as yankee propaganda. You attempted to do research and learn something huh? Well all you did was go to a yankee propaganda video and got fed more horse shit. You get an F on your homework.

[@beepboop204]

[@MrFoster91]

I say we should be more worried about north Korea or maybe the middle east than Russia

[@commiemeth]

It's not the fact no isn't worried about North Korea. If it does anything, it's still apart of the Korean War they started which never ended, South Korea/US is still in open war with DPRK. However Russia, launched an invasion against not only a weak nation, but has launched a war in Europe for the first time on a major scale since world war 2 utilizing the same claims the same dickass 80 years ago used to invade everyone . Russia is a security council member, infact it's THE security council member. If they get away with their retarded decision than other autistic children will eat clay. You cannot allow them to do so. So North Korea is free to do what it pleases to the US or south Korea because it's already at war. They will get their shit rocked or they will win. No surprise here. But Russia could have chosen literally any other way.

[@kilgoretrout413]

I wouldn’t trust those slimy Ivans

[@pandoraeeris7860]

So you're saying there's a chance? 😂

[@LenovoLenovo-g2f]

Can t use nuk,s. Winds allways come from west and south!

[@ITILII]

Yes Russia has the most nukes, but judging by how badly their other weapons work, their nukes may be in quite the same condition (naturally no one wants to test that out) That said, in WW2 Germany probably had the biggest stockpile of chemical weapons....and someone worse than Putin was in charge. Hitler didn't use any chemical weapons at all (perhaps his experience in the Great War, when he was a front line soldier who suffered from the Allies use of chemical weapons, gave him a little insight) So.....the use of nukes....Extremely Unlikely 🤔

[@freetrialhaha]

Russian weapons, and even older soviet era ones, have repeatedly proven to be more effective in real conventional warfare than their western counterparts. Russia possesses the best missile technology in the world. Not even the US can compare. Comparing the Nazis' chemical stockpile is entirely unrelated and seems to convey your underlying biases as believing Russia is some evil regime hell bent on conquering its' neighbors, which of course is a fantasy.

[@edyriswanto7134]

Depended on war

[@changtuckfatt5949]

Unexpected, is beyond our imagination, but not Russia,the evil provocation never expect

[@freetrialhaha]

👻

[@thomashenden71]

This video contributes to underestimating the danger of nuclear weapons, which is not good. The claim has always been that nuclear weapons are a deterrent, but rationally, they really aren’t! They are just dangerous to have! Especially in the numbers of thousands and thousands, ready to fire. Said plainly - nuclear weapons are just a stupid risk that will hit us, sooner or later. The mathematical principal behind this, is scarily simple - let us have a look back on the cold war, and the nuclear readiness that have been and still is ongoing, to do a nuclear strike. At any time, a number of nations, particulary the USA and Russia, are prepared to strike back if there is an incoming threat. The point is - we already know, that WW3 was barely avoided a number of times, due to misunderstandings, and additionally, there were tense situations, like the Cuban missile crisis. If we consider these events, as non rational reasons to retaliate or attack with nuclear weapons, we quickly realise that for each period of time given, there is a nonzero risk of a nuclear armageddon, because of reasons that really are not relevant to using nuclear weapons. To examplify: If we use a yearly average risk of 1% for a misunderstanding, technical error, malfunction, even terrorism or any other random event, to happen, causing a nuclear weapon to be fired, and that there has gone, 70 years from about 1950 to about 2020, we would calculate the chance of survival after these 70 years. The 1% risk is of course an average in our example, the actual risk may have been much lower or much higher, a particular year,the some goes for the average risk, of course. Anyway - an 1% risk, is a 99% chance of survival or 0.99 in probabilistic terms. To calculate the survival chance over 70 years, we would need to do the calculation 0.99^70 or 0.99 to the power of 70, giving the result 0.495 which corresponds to a near 50% chance of survival after 70 years. As the exponent (number of years) rises, the probability of survival sinks towards zero! Of course we do not know the real risk, which probably on average have been and will be lower. Still - over time, the risk will increase. It is like throwing dice again, and again. And - this is the risk of just having these weapons available to use, where we must presume that any accident that either triggers the attack alarm and result in an actual launch of these weapons, or where a weapon actually is fired, would give a very high risk of retaliation because of a misunderstanding, thus leading to armageddon. Even with lower estimates of risk, because the risk is nonzero and time goes, it will add up. This means - rationally - even having these weapons available, is over time, more dangerous, that the risk which we meant to avoid by having them as deterrence. The real danger is just having the weapons ready to use, because sooner or later, someone will roll snake eyes, to use the dice throwing example, even if the chance per throw or per time unit, may look slim.

[@changtuckfatt5949]

But we afraid the madness and crazy guy had a attention to destroy Russia threat somehow we had to be cautious measure ment

[@Dr.876]

its not unprovoked war from russia if they are at treat from nato and ukriane want to join!!!!!

[@benbo4394]

They won’t need to if they’re just fighting Ukraine, but if NATO deploy troops into Ukraine just like how the US intervened in the Korean War, then the option is likely third on the to do list

[@mememanbehindtheshadows546]

Then that would be a direct conflict which could result to much more greater conflict. Unlike korean conflict on china was the one that US faced, not soviet. Then if that happens expect devas tation.

[@erazmuz]

Implying and actually using it are two different things. The U.S is the only country that has used nukes and did a good job at massive cover ups and psyops to the extent that even the Japanese cannot even say the U.S wreaked such horror on them 😂

[@southflorida009]

Unprovoked war? Very partial definition....

[@sH-ed5yf]

Russia basicly started the war in 2014 and used it as an excuse for invasion

[@ИмяФамилия-ж2л6ы]

@@sH-ed5yf Dada, she demolished Yanukovych, started killing Russians, so that she could then conclude the Minsk agreements, so that later....... God, Western propaganda will not disappear from your heads

[@jesseterrell2109]

Why would they need to

[@baneofbanes]

Because the Russian military isn’t making any major breakthroughs.

[@jesseterrell2109]

@@baneofbanes they really don’t need to. In a war of attrition Russia should win.

[@baneofbanes]

@@jesseterrell2109 Russia has lost multiple wars before. They’re not the Soviet Union, they don’t have unlimited manpower or supplies anymore.

[@jesseterrell2109]

@@baneofbanes they have plenty to deal with Ukraine bud. They won’t take Kiev but they will hold on to what they have and probably more before a treaty is signed.

[@baneofbanes]

@@jesseterrell2109 no they don’t. They’re fucking relying on military support form North Korea and Iran, both third world countries I might add. And even then Russia hasn’t been able to break the stalemate. You’re either an idiot or a shill.

[@wtfbros5110]

nothing happens nothing ever fucking happens

[@charlscuellar]

Life is shades of gray and rarely black and white, also..

[@michaeldunham3385]

Not necessarily, we know Putin invaded Ukraine without any real provocation

[@emmisysquire9684]

Don’t jinx it

[@Korporaal1]

Under the heading 'IKYKIK': Putin is aware that Western surveillance and intelligence can observe his preparations for the use of (tactical-) nuclear weapons. In order to be able to use them reliably, he would have to make longer term -less observable- preparations. He could, for example, prepare some lower yield warheads in the same way that strategic weapons are ready. What is to say that he doesn't have some smaller warheads stored there where the launch vehicles are? This would circumnavigate Western surveillance and intelligence. Remember: The Russian hierarchy is immoral, not stupid.

[@alek9195]

You understand that a certain number of nuclear weapons are on combat duty. She is always ready. What kind of preparations are you talking about? Of course he would use small charges in Ukraine and not thermonuclear weapons lol.

[@Mrgunsngear]

🇺🇸

[@-JA-]

❤️🇺🇦❤️ 🙂👍

[@sebastianthomsen2225]

SLAVA UKRAYINI !🔱💙💛✌😊