The Problem with Russia's "Escalate to Deescalate" Strategy 

He wasn't expecting the mushroom cloud, which was first of it's kind

It was an internship

please edit this comment so those of us with a vocabulary can understand it. Thank You

Forever a failure. Same as every current western muppet politician.

You only have to push this but-...How could you MISS this?! 8>D

LMFAO. Literally Moscow since the fall of the Soviet Union

Novogorod should've united Russia.

I stand by my opinion that Putin is still stuck in the cold war, hence why his strategies just aren’t working.

@@atinofspam3433 "I stand by my opinion that Putin is still stuck in the Cold War, hence why his strategies aren't working." Agreed, his days behind a desk never left him.

@@concept5631 That is such a great way of describing it, Putin’s also had the Soviet dictator traits of letting massive amounts of people die for little to no real gain. And turning a blind eye to the now thousands of reports of his soldiers raping and killing for fun.

No war is mistake free. Russia is winning and will continue to. That's what's important to them.

@@gmw3083 is that why the kremlin is resorting to hiring mercenaries?

And surely, if they use "tactical" nukes it'll be military targets only. Russia has shown great restraint & precision so far... Definitely not indiscriminate shelling directed at civilian populations! And seeing as how they still can't protect air power miles from their own border, or effectively use smart munitions, it's totally believable they'll suddenly be more capable & precise with actual nukes! 😅

@@gmw3083 Russia cannot win but since you think it is... please explain Russia's goal. From where I'm sitting, Russia looks unhinged. It doesn't have a clue.

@@gmw3083 lmao, by what possible metric is Russia winning?! I guess they’re winning at providing equipment to Ukraine by fleeing and leaving everything behind.

Germany did exactly that against the netherlands in ww2 and they were the aggressor. Not with nukes but still levelled rotterdam.

@@shgalagalaa And you think that the Germans won because of destroying my birth town? That is not true. The reason the Netherlands had to give up...nearly all munition in mycountry was used. No possibility to fight back and hold the lines anywhere (Except kornwerderzand). Just look to the history books at what moment the dutch govermnet evacuated to London...and part of the royal family to Canada. That was before the destruction of Rotterdam. In other words...technically the Germans had won already before this bombardment. But with very heavy losses in (transport) planes. And no munition/weapons left in only 5 days was because the (Dutch) pacifists (broken rifle) had forgotten Ceasars words...If you want peace be prepared for war (defending yourself). My father told me it was his only regret in life....that as a youngster also he was such a pacifist and assured me to make never that mistake.

Hence the annexation. Let’s not forget that those cities in the ethnically Russian portion of Ukraine probably don’t really see themselves as culturally Ukrainian, especially if they are speaking Russian and have deep familial ties to Russia. That’s why the reimposition of Ukrainian authority in those regions would be less likely, especially after the Russian referendums.

@@__Patrick Had Russia treated the annexed territories in a consiliatory fashion, and administered them well, then they might have had a chance at using Escalate to Deescalate to convince Ukraine to accept their loss. But instead, the engaged in an orgy of mass rape, looting, torture and mass executions. This has convinced the Ukrainians there is no way out but victory or death. Its a convincing argument.

@@__Patrick not sure I’d really put that much weight behind those referendums given the way they were conducted

Except back then most people were aware of what was going on and actually tried to de-escalate.

Having gone thru that period myself, I can agree you now have an idea of what it was like. I served my country (our country? I live in the US, but I am not assuming you live here too ) and I hope that this is as close as you and yours come to what my generation faced.

Nah shit was WAYYY more tense back then

The stories my grandfather told me about. "Not fun" were his words.

I'm almost ready to see it happen at this point. At least then we might finally see the West take a real concrete stand against the tyranny.

And I hope, if it comes down to it. that cooler heads prevail over the whims of the... maybe madman putin?

@@Destroyer_V0 Don't bet on "cool heads" inside Kremlin. Bet on fear and personal gain.

@@madeline6951 I know... I am allowed my one small spark of optimism though.

@@Destroyer_V0 yeah, sure, but that attitude didn't help my country to prepare for the inevitable, lmao

That is seriously something that should be taken into account.

"Inflation is increasing at a decreasing rate" Richard Nixon as the first presidential candidate ever to use a third derivative in a political stump speech. 8>D

I laughed so hard when I heard that Calc. joke!

Let's add Econ. Law of diminishing returns is kicking in. Yes, the distribution of difficulty of targets vary, which is why the low hanging fruit eventually runs out.

@@Snoil Seems to me that it's the 2nd derivative

@@noahkatz9616 inflation is a first derivative already

They used to have one of the world’s largest stockpile. Nobody is going to dearm going forward.

Which I think is one of the most disheartening things about this conflict. It proves that good faith nations can’t be secure in laying down nuclear arms. The only way for it to be truly safe is for the complete abolition of nukes.

They had nukes since the Sovjet Union but gave them away in order for a promise of Russia never to be invaded ever ;)

I find it hard to imagine they'd maintain NATO support if they broke from the NPT. If NATO wanted them to have nukes, they could get them there over night.

Russia has headaches for decades to come anyway, no matter how things pan out.

This is not even really the case with Japan, a lot of the motivation for dropping the bomb was due In large part to the amount of money that had been spent on it and as a means of demonstrating its power to the global community.

@@_Atzin Mostly due to hundreds of thousand of dead american and millions of japanese dead from such invasion

He can't win, can't break even, can't get out of the game.

@@_Atzin True. This was the true motivation. US did a horrible atrocity in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo too with all the napalm. But because they where "winners" everybody seems to be fine by this. Great. All the stories of "escalation-to-deascalation" and "feeling sorry to sacrifice many lives" are just made up by the people that want to justify this atrocity.

@@ScienceDiscoverer what the US did to Japan in WW2 is more retaliation and justice than atrocity. After all the Japanese People supported the Imperial Military in its massacres in China. They just received what they did and wanted to inflict on others. Same as Germany when it bombed to pieces. That’s what ya get for killing millions.

You also need to consider what kind of peace deal they're getting for surrendering. For Japan they got a pretty good peace deal, they were able to rebuild the country and remain independent. The peace deal Russia is offering to Ukraine is enslavement of their population and genocide. That's why this will never work because Ukraine will never accept that kind of deal, anyone would rather fight to the last death as long as they can fight rather than accepting getting enslaved and genocided.

Apparently, Russia has already cancelled the cancellation. Didn't take long once Russia saw we don't give a crap what they say anymore.

Putin is right NOW treading on VERY THIN ICE! One mistake from one of his Commanders could make the entire Russian Black Sea fleet SUBMARINES!

Russia backed down already. They said there were chill with with grain deal Btw even if their ships try to approach grain corridor they might get into the range of Ukrainian anti-ship missiles.

@@ZoragRingael They already are with the advance on Kherson bringing UA forces in range for 2/3 of the corridor.

Turkey lacks capability to carry out anything near " obliteration". Eye for an eye exchange sure but far from obliteration.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firecrackers compared to modern nukes. That's a big problem.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved at least 50,000 lives and Japan as a nation, since it was envisioned that EVERY man, woman and child in Japan would fight to the death! I knew Okinawans on Okinawa who told me that few Japanese soldiers were captured during the battle of Okinawa and many Okinawans committed suicide on Okinawa since they were told the Americans would kill and EAT them and rape their children. They told me that they REALLY believed what the Japanese Authorities told them only to find out that the Americans in fact gave aid, food and medical treatment to the Okinawan civilian populace!

@Dededede Dede I didn't mention God's hands I said ' everyone will realise......and refrain..." From Pressing that button God willing 🙏

The US nuked Japan, twice. How do you feel about that?

@@punkypinko2965 Definitely not a huge fan. But, I'm also mindful enough to understand that how I feel about it now isn't very relevant to the sentiments present back then. It's easy to look back on it from the present and draw negative conclusions, like perhaps there could have been a better approach. However, at the time, the vast majority of Americans (along with the rest of the west) were in full support of doing whatever we had to do to get Japan to surrender, because they were making it quite clear that they were willing to continue the war until the very last man was standing. Agree with the proposition or not, the reality is, dropping those two bombs actually saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides of the equation. Though I, and presumably many others, would have much preferred if all of those innocent lives didn't have to be the sacrifice.

@@punkypinko2965 Would you have preferred an invasion of Japan's 2 largest home islands? We didn't know it at the time but the Japanese correctly guessed which beaches we were going to use and plan accordingly. An invasion which the estimated U.S. casualties were North of 500k including 100k KIA. I could give more reasons but I don't want to create a wall of text.

@@jeffreyskoritowski4114 So lets nuke school children? Sorry no. So to you the US can justify nuking civilians .... you're a monster. Guess you think Russia should nuke the US then because it's easier than invading? Ok that's you. I think that's insane. Anyone who thinks nuking cities is a good idea is just a monster and shouldn't be taken seriously. I guess war crimes are just a good strategy to you. Sorry but the truth hurts sometimes. You need to hear it. I guess the Nazis gassing people was good because it was more efficient? Wow. You are off your rocker.

Ukraine is already winning the war. Just a matter of time till Putin croacks!

@@gmw3083 not even close. Quit spreading Russian propaganda.

That is a somewhat silly leap of logic. Because Ukraine in this context is none of these things, well it is one of these things, nationality, but it's not an ideology and not an ethnicity. Ukraine is a state that comprises its citizens, who are multi ethnic and have a variety of ideologies. So you would suggest that subjugation and oppression is worse than death, which I assure you we aren't that suicidal. You can recover from slavery, you can't recover from death. The calculation here is different. That we need to push Russia back hard because otherwise they'll come back deadlier, they need to be shown their place in the world, namely that they don't have the right to interfere in their neighbours' business. You can't have a truce with Russia, and you can't count on it not sacrificing millions of its own citizens. We'll definitely need a NATO membership going forward for protection, but for that, our territorial integrity in internationally recognised borders needs to be restored.

@@gmw3083 50 000 roubles have been deposited to your account.

@@gmw3083 you out of your mind?

Yup, it's actually called attrition, I know it's just a game and all and that doesn't always transfer 1:1 in real life but it's surprising how many real life concepts are in the game

China is very much against the idea that countries with nukes should actually use them. Russia might even get invaded by China if they do!

@@znail4675 even without the nukes we could be looking at this scenario if Russia is successful at demilitarizing itself

Bravo…. Brilliant catch. I wouldn’t have caught that in a million years . Ohhhh Easter egg maybe at 5:01 …. Step 2 = intermediary step. Still image of a shroom cloud while he said it’s often “nebulous”.., either way brilliant script.

In the video the word nuclear becomes unclear as the word moves from top left to bottom right

🤨🌐♾️🌐 IF you say sooo....?!? IF PUTIN'S RUSSIAN 🇷🇺 MAIN GOAL IS EAST OF UKRAINE 🇺🇦 THEN HE WON'T HESITATE TO DESTROY with 🇷🇺JETS / WARCOPTERS & TANKS EVERYTHING IN HIS PATH TO THE EASTERN BORDERS OF UKRAINE 🇺🇦 THAT TRANSLATES TO WAY MORE CASUALTIES & DEATHS PER DAY TO REACH PUTIN'S 🇷🇺 GOALS OBJECTIVES WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE....⁉️ NOT TO MENTION A STRATEGICALLY PLACED NUCLEAR STRIKE IN THE MIDDLE OF UKRAINE 🇺🇦 TERRITORY BORDERS KILLING MILLIONS OF UKRAINIAN 🇺🇦 POPULATIONS....‼️

There ya go. Western military ideology is based on video games. Sheesh....

@@gmw3083 what? Are you just slow or something?

@@baneofbanes Maybe, regarding this topic. I don't play video games. Total waste of time and a prime cause of brain rot.

@@baneofbanes yeah he’s just got his own case of brain rot from Facebook

@@gmw3083 you’re the only one here displaying brain rot.

I appreciate you!

Big question marks given money to maintain weapons never expected to be used sounds like money better spent on something else by the people responsible - especially 30 years into the life of a kleptocratic mafia state.

Highly doubt anyone with the mental capacity to do Russian nuclear engineering would stay in Russia, for quality of life reasons.

Do not forget that it is not just putin fighting in this war .... What are the chances of soldiers following that orders?

It would be hilarious if russia launched a nuke only for it to land un detonated and able to be captured by Ukraine

Seeing that russia can slam two of its fighter planes int otheir own civilian buildings in timeframe of one week projects a possibility where russia nukes itself.

We’d all cease to exist. Once the nuclear genie is out of the bottle then we’re all screwed lest there’s a coup in Russia or the US has some kind of wonder weapon up it’s sleeve (I’m not counting on either)

There's no win scenario for Russia. None.

I think Ukraine wants to cut off supplies from the north and take back Kherson by winter. Then I can see things settle until late spring. Hopefully the west keeps sending Ukraine the aid the desperately need. If Ukrainians are being trained on F-16's then maybe we'll see a change of pace in early spring? I guess we'll see.

True, but the Ukrainians have the advantage, the fighting is in their country, they are properly dressed for the weather and they can rotate out and in of the combat zone, it is NOT practical for the Russian troops to do the same! I believe this Winter will destroy Putin's Forces in the Ukraine!

the opposite will happen. Russia is waiting for the freeze for mobility. Expects Russia's counter offensive after the freeze.

@@JCElzinga sad but true. they will use this time to prep their new troops for spring offensive

@@khiem1939 Why would you assume the Russians aren't properly dressed for winter? If there's anything Russia military would understand, it's fighting in winter - after all: letting invaders overstretch their supply lines and surviving winter better than they did, was how Russia won her greatest victories.

No😡

This would never have happened though if Ukraine had not freely given up their nukes. Paradoxical as that is.

@@Snoil Yeah that's also true

A nuclear attack on Ukraine will most certainly draw NATO into the war and spell doom for whatever ambitions Russia had for starting this war in the first place. And that may not end well for humanity.

Russia has a response only policy. No first strike. So blame your concerns on the west

A dying Putin may want to commit suicide, but I don't believe these Russian Generals want to follow him to the grave!

There is a third option, escalation as it depends where the nuclear strike is aimed and it's possible surrounding contamination. I wouldn't trust China's role to be any different, it will just regurgitate its "we want to promote peace" mantra and continue to buy cheap energy from Russia. Using nuclear does not guarantee de-escalation, if I was leading the West I would take it that only one option remained as Putin has ignored all the previous sensible options, and to ignore his escalating actions would cause further problems with all the rogue states in the future, and particularly Russia, a line has to be drawn in the sand or the Autocrats will win without a shoot being fired!?!

I wonder how Russian PR can possibly spin using nukes as them saving Ukraine somehow? Nazi seeking explosions?

Slight problems with your response: your points 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been mentioned in the video.

Almost certainly it wouldn't stop the UA. In fact I wouldn't be shocked if it just further stiffened resolve. Using tactical nukes is basically admitteding you have no other cards to play imo.

@@simon-pierrelussier2775 I was responding to the title of the vid before watching it.

@@gigacanno750 Then you should watch the video first before commenting, right? You could've captioned your statement with "Initial thoughts before watching the vid" or something to that effect so people wouldn't think you have comprehension problems. With this comment, you're making it appear to others that the video didn't discuss these points, which it did.

Responding to an idea before even listening to it....lmao

Russian soldiers will suffer harshly through winter since they have no winter equipments

Russia is running out of metal of all sorts. They still have a lot but at this rate, he won't have much military left by next summer. At some point, Pootin will need to retreat. If he doesn't, someone close to him will show him the window.

That will be a idiotic plan......usa pushing ukraine to use dirty nuke because they're under pressure and won't win the war

@@fs0c1ety_bs92 lol, someone seriously believes Russian propaganda bullshit I surprised you hadn't mentioned American battle mosquitos :D

Western leaders arent weak, they are just as corrupt than Putin, anything, also stronger and even dangerous, both sides gotta stop, it's destroying countries worth of peace! Only a fool would fight for another man's cowardness

It's not just probable USA have outright said that if Russia uses nukes then they would use conventional means to take out Russia's forces near Ukraine.

Why can't we use game theory? Putin may have goals that we don't like, but that doesn't mean that he's going about achieving them in irrational or counterproductive ways. What's more, if he is crazy, his inner circle would get rid of him. A madman might be an OK figurehead, but it would jeopardise their wealth and power if one were actually in charge. Putin's goals appear to be to stay in power, and to grab as much Ukrainian territory as possible. Lots of people in history have had goals like this. They're hardly the goals of a madman, even if they offend our sensibilities in the West. So, Putin launched an invasion of Ukraine. Why? He thought it would be easy. Given that plenty of analysts in the West thought it would be easy for him as well, it is hardly an irrational act. Perhaps a bit risky, but I suspect that people with low tolerance for downside risk don't tend to become presidents of Russia. After invading, Putin finds out that Ukraine isn't going to collapse, and that his army is less effective than he thought. Still, he has a bunch of territory, so he gives up on attacking Kyiv, and moves his troops to defend what he has. Did you just expect him to give up and order his troops home? Why would he do that? Losing a bunch of men and gaining nothing would hardly make him safe politically. Losing more men, but having something to show for it might save his neck, and, after all, more territory is better than less territory anyway. Still, he doesn't mobilise. That's politically risky, and maybe his troops can fight to a standstill. If they hold until winter, he can try cutting off the gas to blackmail Europe into withdrawing support. Devoid of weapons and economic aid (or at least threatened with such), Ukraine either accepts the status quo, or fights it much less effectively. Ukraine gets more equipment, and makes some gains in the field. If Putin loses in Ukraine, he's in serious trouble at home. Faced with a bad situation either way, he chooses the less bad option of mobilisation. If losing a little and losing a lot will both result in a loss of power (and probably death), why not gamble for resurrection? Why not at least try to hold on until January and see how willing Europe is to go without gas? And why not force Ukraine to shoot down thousand dollar drones with million dollar missiles, and damage some infrastructure? This is roughly where we are now. Putin may have been wrong about Ukraine's ability to resist, but I can't think of anything he's done that is irrational. Sure, he rattles the nuclear sabre a bit, but why shouldn't he? It's free, and it may persuade gullible voters in the west that he's mad and might end the world if he doesn't get what he wants. Then, those voters, who don't want the world to end, put pressure on their governments to force Ukraine to make a settlement. He hasn't even violated the test ban treaty yet. If he's not even willing to 'test' a nuke underground, why would we believe he's ready to use one to 'defend' territory annexed in a sham referendum that no one else recognises as Russian?

@@lacklustermathie They have mainly gone after civilian targets, not military ones. The civilian killings in Bucha and Izyum. How is this even remotely rational from a game theory perspective ?

@@williambreedyk7861 From the news sources I've had a look at, each incident was about ~500 people. Certainly devastating for the communities, but even if we stipulate that these killings served no purpose for controlling the population and preventing spying, I don't see how anything substantial would have changed. Did 1000 murders take away troops that would have turned the tide of a particular battle? Do we really believe that enough Ukrainians to make a difference were indifferent to Russian progress until Bucha was discovered? All it proves is that Putin and the Russians more generally place very low value on Ukrainian lives. But that doesn't mean that game theory doesn't work. Attacking civilian targets isn't necessarily irrational either. They're easier to find and hit, and the Ukrainian government must deal with the aftermath, and expend political effort acquiring countermeasures from the West. If the drones are cheaper than the missiles that shoot them down, Russia wins even more. It is not very likely that the West will let Ukraine make comparable attacks against Russian civilian infrastructure, so a tit for tat threat doesn't apply. Or, maybe, the Kremlin is maintaining the tit for tat threat by getting revenge for the Crimean Bridge. This also lets Russia test the effectiveness of the different air defence systems that the west has. I'd also point out that attacking civilian targets also shows that Putin is 'doing something', and so is likely to be popular, at least among some people, and help his political survival. Sure, military gains would be better, but that would rely on his ground forces being able to exploit whatever advantage the attack gives. I certainly wouldn't bet my life that Russian forces could successfully execute a coordinated land and air joint offensive. I don't see why Putin would want to do that either, if he has other options.

Patrolling the Mojave Almost Makes You Wish For a Nuclear Winter

Imagine nuking someone who was losing. Even worse warcriminal.

@@CountingStars333 imagine letting the war continue and having to invade conventionally. Do you know, the japanese government at that time had a plan for a basically mass suicide??? In the battle of Okinawa (conventional naval invasion), almost a half of the civilian population died, using this for reference, the atomic bombs saved tens of millions of people from the same fate(and probably a soviet occupation).

Not really that different both have an enemy at their border taking Japan would have been a long bloody campaign same as Ukraine both the US and Russia (if they do) hoped they could supplement that cost with nuclear weapons. Although the big difference is the world would immediately turn on russia it would be their end as a country no doubt about it.

@@CountingStars333 lol worse than who? Japan? If you're so you know nothing about ww2. Russia? Again not really Japan attacked the US while Russia started this war and immediately started committing war crimes against their "brother" nation who's military wasn't even close to being formidable. You're just an idiot all the way around. 🙄

@@CountingStars333 wars are never meant to be fair, if you’re trying to always fight in a fair basis you’re doing it wrong. You try to get the ahead either with doctrine, numbers, technology etc. You don’t see in the latter parts of WWII military units be fighting with equal numbers, Soviets had millions of troops poured into the invasion of Germany till the battle for Berlin and the US having dozens of carriers compared to Japans handful. Even desert storm is a good example, coalition forces sent the Iraqi’s back to their border and amassed hundreds of aircraft that dwarfs the Air Force of Iraq.

Of course. And Putins gobby little trolls would claim NATO started it too because a small percentage of phukwits believe them!

Totally copied idea from the Infographics Show

Thank you as always!

Could u give me a ph call. Ty

I think you are quite correct. It might have been a significant reason, but on it's own, it wouldn't have been enough. positioning of the fleet to make it likely that there could be more incoming, Russia politically getting them in a worse position... really made the nukes go from a threat to a threat that broke their backs. Edit: Not that they where necessary, as pointed out, it really was the other things that made it a problem. Their loss was imminent. had the nukes not fallen, they might have made a conditional surrender within a few weeks, the nukes just put it up to unconditional and the date earlier. But yeah, they US knew that they where running out of time to try their new shiny weapon, and took the chance while they could. And it ended the war earlier, as it fully broke their spirit. nukes didn't fall over important cities, they fell over large immigrant filled cities. Sort of like if an enemy bombed Detroit suburbs. Sure, America would think it was horrible, and worth vengeance normally, but would also joke about it, and that at least the crimerate was dropping this year...

"It is pretty widely accepted" doesn't mean its true. There have been serious doubts raised about that interpretation of history, much focused on the fact the Japanese imperial authorities were already debating how to surrender, and were largely unbothered by further civilian casualties.

@@chipmo Yeah, well after the fact, it's not in the context of the time. I say they did what was best to them and there was NO good answer, maybe one less costly than the other, we will never know. They did what was more safe especially for USA, which is understandable, especially after all that happened.

No just no. They were more terrified of being annexed by the Soviet’s and also they had been fire bombed into oblivion which was far worse then the nukes and much easier to do. Trust me the nuclear devastation at first looked like fire bombing runs and wasn’t anything special. We often high light it when really it was just the USA flexing their power

Potential History made quite a good summary of those events - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zMieIAjIY0c.html

Yeah if Russia were to use Nukes it would set a terrible precedence to not intervene, because that would signal to other countries that in order to defend themselves they need their own nuclear arms it's a deep rabbit hole

If the Kherson offensive goes into the winter, the Ukrainians are just going to HIMARS the crap out of them until the Russians collapse. A bit like a firing range....

why? ukraine is a radioactive wasteland already thanks to chernobyl

It's true that Russia spends an oddly low amount of money on their warheads compared to USA, UK, France, China, even accounting for the domestic spending power advantage of the ruble vs the dollar or pound. I would never bet on that - it might be more the case that thousands of their weapons are broken down but some portion of their warheads are given appropriate attention. Russia and USA do not have nearly as big as an advantage on strategic weapon numbers vs China or UK/France as some people suggest as a big portion of the thousands of weapons are tactical, and most tactical weapons are on the mid to smaller end.

@@mattjk5299 their weapons also dont work

@@Khobai Who's don't work? What weapons?

Its unlikely we will see a nuclear attack period stop fearmongering the end of the world

I don’t blame them for not seeking peace. Heck both sides have turned down peace talks.

@@sheepdog5799 there were never any serious peace talks. Russia made demands, and Zelensky rightfully flipped him the bird. Russia can't be rewarded in any way for this illegal invasion. The west has already said Ukraine would win this war. Do you think they'll back down and let Ukraine fall after all this?

What does Russia have that China needs, and would it even trust Russia as an ally? Russia has hydrocarbons and other natural resources. Is there another way that China can get this without cooperation and without offering something in return? Yes. They can wait things out until Russia goes to shit, shake a few trees and lean things just a little to make it fall apart, and then pick up the pieces that it wants. A much better strategy than relying on a piece of paper signed by Kremlin, which, as Bismarck observed, are not worth much. Just now Armenia tried to call in a mutual defense agreement against Azerbaijan. Crickets.

@@SianaGearz Russia has gas and fertilizer

China has an incentive to maintain the nuclear taboo. A full scale nuclear war would be bad for everyone (including the Chinese leadership), and 'allowing' the use of nuclear weapons increases the chance of that happening in the future. Perhaps the probability of full scale nuclear war by moving from 'never use nukes' to 'sometimes it is OK to use nukes' is small, but the cost of full scale nuclear war is so large that allowing the shift still isn't worth it. Beyond that, if the public thinks that a nuclear war is possible, they'll probably shift some of their money from savings/investment to consumption. After all, you know for sure you're here today to consume stuff, but the world might end tomorrow. That doesn't mean you blow everything, but you might just weight the future a bit less strongly in your decisions. In any case, even if China is indifferent in its own right, I think the West would be sufficiently outraged by a nuclear strike that we will bear the cost of secondary sanctions if China (or India) doesn't respond.

China is likely to invade Vladivostok if they think they can get away with it. They've made it clear they think its theirs and that they eventually intend to take it back. The problem with a gang of thieves is they all steal from each other if they think they can get away with it. Look up the Sino - Soviet Border conflict of 1969, they fought an undeclared war for 7 months. Both Putler and Winnie the Pooh have a gangster mentality.

China and Russia were "friends" of convenience. China must be looking at Russian military performance in a whole new light, as we all are. China now knows they can't depend on Russia for anything but oil. Russia's military is history.

"But I doubt the people in the chain of command would feel as suicidal" , I think there is no chain of command, just one guy.

Russia has very specific SOP for using a nuke. It’s not just one guys opinion

@@sheepdog5799 Russia doesn't make rules Putin makes them.

@@michaelmcclown5593 i dont see putin in the trenches.... So There is one

Russian generals are total yes men who will do whatever they are told.

I agree with all except for the testing part. Hiroshima was the location of an Army barracks used to train newly conscripted soldiers making it a valid target under the Law of Armed Conflict. Further, Nagasaki was the primary munitions production site, with ALL of the torpedoes used by the IJN and most of the artillery shells having been produced there. Munitions production is also a legitimate military target under LOAC.

@@davidford3115 thank you very much for your answer ! But with all due respect, if it explains the choice of the target, I still wonder about the choice of the bomb... Was there no powerful enough conventional bomb(s) ? Was there a legislation about the use of the nuclear bomb since it was a first ? I might go ahead of myself for the testing part, of course, I wouldn't think it was the first purpose...

@@karineroumache9124 Your questions are an example of presentism (chronological fallacy). You are judging their actions based on today's standards which is an inappropriate way to analyze that situation. By the laws in place for that time (both American and international), it was absolutely justified. And yes, they did test the trinity device before they dropped it on Nagasaki.

@@davidford3115 I see what you mean but...yes and no ;) Yes because I am aware of that bias and no because they are genuine questions and not disguised statements. I am also aware that I don't know enough history, which is why I ask. You seem to know that part of history much more accurately than I do and I am not trying to flatter you. When I was a teenager, I was fascinated by two aspects : the Manhattan Project and the rise of Nazism in Germany. I have forgotten a lot and also, the military part was not what I studied most at the time. So I may not know what seems obvious to you. Now I find it all very interesting especially in the light of the times we live in.

@@karineroumache9124 Nothing wrong with asking questions with the purpose of gaining a better understanding. I applaud that. Sadly, most discussions of American use of nuclear weapons degenerates into insipid recriminations and loaded questions rife with anachronistic claims. To your first question, the US had already used large scale incendiary weapons in Tokyo. Compared to that, the use of nuke was actually LESS destructive than the firebombing. As for legislation, there was none specifically regulating the use of nukes and so their use actually fell under the auspices of the local commanders. They just happened to choose to defer to the POTUS, setting the standard by which modern nuclear use doctrine follows.

Operation Teapot, 1955.

India and China would look down on Russia with their arms crossed if they even use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine I just shows what a massive desperate loser Russia is And that they would ever use a nuclear weapon all because they are losing a small state country

That sounds like bullshit, you mean to tell me that Vietnamese officials started a countdown timer every time bombs dropped, but they stopped just a few seconds before the "Sue for peace threshold"? Copium is a hell of a drug

We could question if Russia is capable of doing the maintenance of their entire arsenal (which they most likely are not), but its doubtful that they dont have at least a portion of their nuclear arsenal ready and well maintained

Russian units being inserted NOW are nothing more than cannon fodder to gain Putin some time! Many are being killed, wounded, captured or surrendered within 10 days of entering the Ukraine! They have NO training and in one picture I saw taken by the Ukrainians, it appears that an entire squad of about 10 Russian soldiers were bunched together at the end of a building and one or two Ukrainian soldiers killed them all with small arms fire!

@@khiem1939 This isn't the approach Russia has taken in the past when evacuating dangerous areas of their forces. When Izyum was closing Russia brought in their absolute best forces to hold the line while the others evacuated, then they evacuated themselves. The exact opposite is happening in Kherson. Either they're throwing forces away when still their biggest problem is manpower or they expect these forces to be able to hold the line. I can't guarantee that Russian command isn't absolutely moronic, but if you're assuming that every action your enemy takes is the wrong one because they've made mistakes in the past, you'll eventually be in for a nasty surprise. Maybe this is Russia preparing to abandon the area they just annexed, have fought like hell to hold, and are pumping fresh troops into, or maybe they expect that these forces will be able to hold the line and that Ukraine's focus is shifting away from Kherson. Only time will tell.

This is all accurate. Japan was losing, but contrary to what revisionists like to claim, weren't just "going to surrender anyway".... they wanted to bait the US into an invasion & have them stack up massive losses to secure a better deal. They were desperate to avoid an unconditional surrender, but after the second nuke, the writing was on the wall. Even still, it took the Emperor to step in to agree to a surrender, as Many in command still wanted to fight. Russia's situation is so much different, not to mention our understanding of nuclear weapons has improved dramatically since 1945.

@@corey2232 Agreed

Phase 3: Profit.

He said he's making a video about that *in this video*.

The US and the UK would. I'm not sure about France and Germany. History teaches us that you can't rely on France when things get heated up, and Germany has been castrated since 1945.

@@andersonolb1793 Germany is clearly having a shift in thought, though, since they became too reliant on Russian gas and continually tried to be a friendly go-between. Poland's waiting to be let off the leash too.

The thing about it is, the US could easily end the war in weeks and push Russia out of Ukraine completely if it chose to do so. Using a nuke is the signal that Russian nihilism has finally overtaken pride.

We already know that, thought it depends on how you define a "NATO" response vs a western response vs some other alliance of countries..

Possibly the Civilian sector surrendered due to the Nuclear Bombs while the Military Sector surrendered due to the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria. People who get fire and conventionally bombed everyday wouldn’t really care or feel the effects of a Soviet invasion of a puppet state that’s a sea away from them. Let alone the could the Soviets logistically sustain an amphibious assault to Japan without having to do so something of scale and Kamikaze as a factor as well. So having a nuclear bomb to wipe out a whole city and it’s populace compared to just raging firestorms that burn buildings and people for hours could be a factor for surrendering to the US.

That’s an interesting perspective

I'm totally in support of Ukraine but I can't see them in Crimea this year. Maybe by next summer? This is one time where I'd love to be proven wrong though. Slava Ukraine!!

The west is to blame

Not really. The only escalation in this war os coming from Moscow.

@@gmw3083 no, Pootin is to blame. He ordered the illegal invasion, no-one forced him to. Or is he so weak the the stresses forced him to? Maybe he's so weak that he needs to be removed? You probably don't think so, but I bet that many around him are pondering that exact question...

If you want the reality of Ukraine try Scott Ritter and Douglas McGregor for military expertise. John Mearsheimer for historical context. The new atlas and the Duran for more analysis. Put down the joystick.

@@gmw3083 troll

Your right Russia need to drop the Tsar Bomba right in the middle of Kiev to end this war once and for all.

The west has already warned Russia that there would be a devastating response. As reported by the Pentagon. Russia knows the risks are very high for little to no reward.

@@neogeo6431 you think that would end this war? I don't think you actually believe that. Not with all the NATO submarines in the area, just waiting for orders. Russia's been warned. We're just waiting. Patiently.

@@neogeo6431 Russia does not have a Tsar Bomba. Besides, Russia would do itself an unmeasurable disservice by wiping out Kyiv, killing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians _and Russians_ who live in *the cradle of the Kievan Rus.* Even if such a frnakly moronic action did end the war, it would only herald the beginning of another.

The Kremlin is an EVIL bully, not a sad one. That said though, I feel really bad for the people of Russia.The Kremlin has made both Ukrainians AND Russians victims in this conflict.