UKRAINE | Russia's Nuclear Option?

Подписаться 188 тыс.

Просмотров 41 тыс.

50% 1

As the war in Ukraine continues, there's been growing speculation that Russia could be heading towards defeat. This has led to fears that Moscow may resort to desperate measures. There's even been growing talk of a Russian nuclear strike against Ukraine. But is the nuclear threat real? And what would be the likely Western and international response if Russia did launch a nuclear attack?
Hello and welcome! My name is James Ker-Lindsay. Here I take an informed look at International Relations with a focus on conflicts, security, and statehood. If you like what you see, please do subscribe. If you want more, including exclusive content and benefits, consider becoming a channel member. Many thanks!
SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE ru-vid.com...
JOIN THE CHANNEL / jameskerlindsay
Since 1945, the international community has lived in the shadow of nuclear weapons. As well as the Superpower confrontation of the Cold War, we have also seen the proliferation of nuclear technology in South and East Asia. However, as nuclear weapons have increased in power, so there's also been a sense that they may never be used. However, over the course of 2022, fears have been growing that we may be on the verge of seeing a nuclear weapon used in combat for the first time in almost 80 years. As the war in Ukraine has continued, Russia has made it clear that it would use all weapons available - including its nuclear arsenal - to defend its position in the east of Ukraine and Crimea. While the United States, European Union and others have warned against any strike, many still believe that such threats are just a bluff. However, there are good reasons to take such claims seriously. In contrast to Western thinking, Russia's military doctrine envisages using nuclear weapons to de-escalate a war. And there's a logic to this. But if it works, it raises the risk that other states could follow. To this extent, if Russia does use a nuclear weapon, the reaction of the wider international community will be vital. Indeed, it could well affects the course of international security for decades to come.
CHAPTERS
0:00 Introduction and Titles
00:39 Russia, Ukraine and the Nuclear Threat
01:48 The Origins of Nuclear Weapons
02:43 The Development and Spread of Nuclear Weapons
03:35 Efforts to Limit Nuclear Weapons
04:55 Why Russia May Really Consider A Nuclear Strike
06:57 A Nuclear Strike as a De-Escalation Strategy?
08:27 Western Responses to a Russian Nuclear Strike
10:20 International Reactions to a Strike
RELATED PLAYLISTS
Current Issues and Disputes • CURRENT ISSUES AND DIS...
International Relations, Conflict and Security in the Post-Soviet Space • Ukraine-Belarus | The ...
======
FURTHER READING & USEFUL SOURCES
Treaty of Prohibition on Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) www.icanw.org/signature_and_r...
The Nuclear Posture Review and Russian ‘De-Escalation’
warontherocks.com/2018/02/nuc...
Vladimir Putin, Speech, 21 September 2022 (Kremlin) en.kremlin.ru/events/president...
Nuclear Weapons: A Very Short Introduction amzn.to/3US8idN
The Politics of Nuclear Weapons amzn.to/3UQOess
======
MY BOOKS
Secession and State Creation: What Everyone Needs to Know amzn.to/2MPY3W2 [PRE-ORDER]
The Cyprus Problem: What Everyone Needs to Know amzn.to/2FaaBU2
Kosovo: The Path to Contested Statehood in the Balkans amzn.to/35jiBN2
The Foreign Policy of Counter-Secession amzn.to/2Qinm5t
My other books amzn.to/2MlP13u
======
MY PROFILES & SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS
Twitter / jameskerlindsay
LinkedIn / james-ker-lindsay-b31b...
Academia.edu lse.academia.edu/JamesKerLindsay
Research Gate www.researchgate.net/profile/...
======
EQUIPMENT& TOOL USED TO MAKE THIS VIDEO
Camera: Canon XA40 amzn.to/3CLinzy
Microphone: Røde VideoMic NTG amzn.to/2MAHBZj
Key Light: Elgato amzn.to/3D85kJx
Accent Lights: Aputure MC amzn.to/3kkoGSS
Teleprompter: Parrot 2 amzn.to/2VLcRsm
Tripod: Geekoto 79" Carbon Fibre amzn.to/2wWMNT1
Channel Analytics: TubeBuddy www.tubebuddy.com/JKL
Channel Graphics: motionvfx.sjv.io/NKB34O
======
KEYWORDS
#Russia #Ukraine #Nuclear
#InternationalPolitics #CurrentAffairs #InternationalRelations
DISCLAIMER: Some of the links above are affiliate links. These pay a small commission if you make a purchase. This helps to support the channel and will be at no additional cost to you.

Опубликовано:

22 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 522

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

There's been growing talk that Russia may well resort to a nuclear strike in Ukraine. But just how seriously should we take it? My sense is that this isn't a bluff. But it may be calculated to end the war - albeit on extremely dangerous terms for international peace and security. Worrying times indeed. Thoughts and comments below?

@RichardLaurence Год назад

Listening to Putin’s rambling and paranoid speech today didn’t fill me with optimism. He seems to be driven more and more by his emotions.

@vgames6792 Год назад

Dude, hope this is your own opinion, which has not been paid by third party. Points being, Russia is unable to loose at this point. After US act of terrorism on NS1, NS2 even the most complied Germans will wake up, once the gas will run out. "voting the wrong way" Sweden, Italy, France probably next, then rest of the EU. Bottom line in 2024 we will see peaceful "regime change" in EU, or another 1790 situation. To the nuke situation. 0% chance russia will use even tactical nukes in ukraine. In case of noflyzone or other blinken/nuland BS 100% those places getting nuked. Nuke doctrine of russia did not change, and is publicly available

@krakhedd Год назад

I think China and Russia have a secret pact and their plan, culminating in destruction of the U.S. and scattering of the Western/NATO alliance, is seriously off-target due to Ukraine's heroic defenders and the West staying out of our own way just enough to help Ukraine. I think if anything, it is a foregone conclusion we will see Russia deploy several nukes, and I'm #1 not convinced they'll target Ukraine, #2 let alone be delivered at the tip of a missile

@kirannnnnn Год назад

“The West began its colonial policy back in the Middle Ages, and then followed the slave trade, the genocide of Indian tribes in America, the plunder of India, of Africa, the wars of England and France against China. What they did was hooking entire nations on drugs , deliberately exterminate entire etinic groups ,for the sake of land and resources , they hunted people like animal's - Vladimir Putin Red Indian's in America Tribes in Brazil amazon Roma people in West Colonisation of india over 200 year's of plundering , Genocides , slavery , Wealth over 45 trillion dollars , persecution of Millions of hindus Indian's in Two World war Even last 75 years west is doing same tactics against India

@BuddyLee23 Год назад

The taboo and rational/irrational fear that has grown around the use of nuclear weapons (for now the better part of a century) is most of what matters here - the psychological effects. The US made ‘MOAB’ is comparable to some tactical nuclear weapons, so it’s not like such explosions (yes, minus the radiation factor) have not occurred, even in recent years. Also, mutually assured destruction has not gone away, so theater/grand strategy wide Armageddon is no more likely now than back when the USSR was around. Many statesmen will shudder at the thought of any and all such weapons being used, but much of the apathetic, low attention-span public are just looking forward to seeing a nuclear explosion documented in stunning 4k video (compared to the old film reels). On some level, it’s hard not to shrug with them 🤷🏼

@PlasticScot Год назад

Channels like this are a staple of reliable information and considered debates

@bilic8094 Год назад

It's a very underrated channel I think.

@Estreka Год назад

As a former nuclear operations commander, I have a lot to say about this. Firstly, we (USA) have a treaty in place within which we inspect each other's nuclear weapons. That not only provides a technical understanding of each other's nuclear capabilities, but also the competency of their procedures and crew force. Like ourselves, there are safeguards in place to restrict the usage of a nuclear weapon without the full agreement of the civilian leadership. I word it that way deliberately. Nuclear operations is specifically unautomated throughout the entire command structure. There are human beings at every level (including the top) to ensure the order is both lawful and correct. The system will not allow any singular individual to give the command to launch a nuclear weapon. This doesn't mean a launch is impossible, but the situation needs to fit parameters lined out in doctrine and agreed upon by individuals at all levels. How this applies for a "tactical" nuclear weapon is difficult to say as Russia is essentially unique with that type of platform, but the standards for officers in this career path are well beyond the regular force. I'm also of the mind that any nuclear weapon, no matter how small the yield, is strategic in nature. I'm certain my Russian counterparts would have similar views. As you've partly discussed, there are myriad ways to dissuade a country from a nuclear strike. There are also a plethora of options for responding, most without escalation. I'm not privy to, nor would I be able to discuss if I were, the pathways developed by the wargamers for such a scenario. But US intel and responses so far have been competent and thorough and I personally trust their judgement to make smart decisions. There are going to be moments during the course of this war that will give the general public pause and there will be rhetoric utilized to inspire panic. These are intentional. Public opinion is a powerful force, both in a democracy and otherwise. I would suggest viewing these statements through this prism.

@xerzy Год назад

@@dann5480 ...you *what*

@thomassenbart Год назад

Very good analysis from the US perspective but the Russians are not us and their doctrine regarding NBC has always been much more liberal than our own. The procedures and authorities to launch nukes also have been and likely still are considerably less stringent in Russia than in the US. Also, given the nature of the Russian govt., a dictatorship, checks on the powers of M. Putin, are problematic, even in this sphere.

@lucianboar3489 Год назад

@@dann5480 is that why you are a "former". Instead of selling them you launched them. Not very profitable.

@Tethloach1 Год назад

Good thing we can always count on luck, yep we all die someday.

@elizabethmorton4904 Год назад

Thanks for this comment - reassuring, after Ker-Lindsay's remarks. Not that I will stop worrying....

@ngolong4070 Год назад

After the bloody crackdown on Chechnya, pretty rich of Russia to talk of self-determination

@PoliticswithPaint Год назад

Excellent video - unfortunately on a horrifying topic. After the Cold War, people seem to have wilfully forgotten that nuclear weapons are still a reality. And now this ghost is back to haunt us -maybe more so than ever before. Let us hope reason prevails.

@michaeldelisieux Год назад

You should know well that the " nucular option" isn't an " option", right?! So, why bother?

@michaeldelisieux Год назад

You should know well that the " nucular option" isn't an " option", right?! So, why bother?

@TheWazzoGames Год назад

Woah! Its politics with paint! Love your channel, mate! Keep up the good work!

@PoliticswithPaint Год назад

@@TheWazzoGames Thank you, glad you enjoy it!

@lukejohn6139 Год назад

What makes this so scary is the way the Professor has made the use of a nuke sound so reasonable from a Russian perspective. The de-escalation idea is really terrifying. It's hard to see how Ukraine and/or Nato can just back down or negotiate with Russia after a nuke is dropped anywhere. Even the Japanese surrender in 1945 may not be as obvious an example of a successful 'de-escalation via nukes' as first appears. Australian historian Paul Ham argues the surrender was not due to the Americans dropping nukes at all, but was because Russia invaded Japanese territory the day after Hiroshima, and the United States agreed not to put Hirohito on trial for Crimes Crimes.

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Thank you Luke. This is exactly why I felt it was important to make the video. We have a very particular way of viewing nuclear weapons in the West. But there is a very different logic elsewhere. I think it’s important to bear this in mind. We say that Putin surely wouldn’t be crazy enough to use one. We don’t understand that in his view there could be a very sane logic behind it. However, it would nevertheless be an absolutely huge gamble. So much would depend on next steps.

@TheWazzoGames Год назад

On the Japanese surrender in 1945 being due to the Soviets; I wouldn’t say that’s the ONLY reason for Japan’s surrender. RU-vidr Potential History made an excellent video on this very subject that I recommend checking out!

@rejvaik00 Год назад

Wasn't the emperor later taken off the protection list during the occupation period? And he had the potential to be tried by the allies and americans but it was the effort of then Maj Gen Fellers who was able to secure the emperor's continued reign?

@PlasticScot Год назад

All jokes aside, your videos are fantastic

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Thank you so much. Although I do sometimes wish my weeks were spent looking at lighter topics!

@ElementaryCharge Год назад

Great analysis, well done and thank you!

@sn0wdon Год назад

I'm very thankful for your channel, your analysis is always level-headed and realistic.

@rebbrown7140 Год назад

Thank you for your concise analysis. You have also generated a lively discussion in the comments, which is informative and reasonable in its own right. A rare thing on the internet!

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Thank you so much. One of the really nice things about the channel is the quality of debate. There are usually a lot if really informed commenters. (Of course, there are also a lot of abusive ones. But not nearly as often as elsewhere!)

@stevemerchant6120 Год назад

Always great content!

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Thank you very much! Really appreciated.

@youtubeuser1993 Год назад

Very informative thanks!

@VladVexler Год назад

Thank you James!

@1857classic Год назад

If Russia was allowed to get away with such a strike , it would simply view this as a sign of weakness in the west and keep doing it. And you can bet China would consider doing the same thing with Taiwan.

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Thanks. That's exactly the problem. The question is what would be the most appropriate response? And how could the West bring on board the other countries of the world that have so far been rather ambivalent about the conflict? There's a danger that the wrong answer to the first may make the second more tricky. If it were to happen, and let's hope not, policy makers will be faced with some very tough choices.

@eugenegvozdetsky2673 Год назад

@@JamesKerLindsay I think that the West should counterattack Russia with non-nuclear weapon. I think the West has enough non-nuclear weapons to crush Russia in a matter of days

@hugodesrosiers-plaisance3156 Год назад

That is some very thought provoking material, especially the bit about a nuclear strike being a way to de-escalate a conflict - it seems very similar to when things get heated between the boys, one lands a square punch and every one is instantly rushing in to keep any one from getting hurt any further. Dostoevsky had a very incisive eye for the human mind, maybe the West is being too dismissive of the Russian perspective on the nuclear question.

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Thank you very much Hugo. That was exactly why I wanted to cover it. We have a very particular view of nuclear weapons in the West that shapes our thinking. We see them as strategic weapons of mass destruction that leads to mutual destruction. In our view, no one would be stupid or insane enough to use one. But this isn't the only view. There is a very sane and well-thought out counter view that is especially dangerous because it sees them as a viable - if extreme - tool in a conventional scenario.

@lingSpeed Год назад

Besides the human cost, my biggest worry of nuclear weapons is that using one would demystify them. From magic weapons of death to just problematic devices they are. And im not sure if world knows what "strong action against nuke" should look like, let alone having unity to act on it. Which would let the devil out of the box for every state in possession of them... Great video!

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Fantastic point. You are absolutely right. It would mark a dangerous and very scary watershed moment in exactly that way. It would require the toughest possible diplomatic, economic and political measures.

@MrNeosantana Год назад

That was exactly the US administration's point during the Korean War and MacArthur's constant requests to use nukes because he saw them as just a bigger bomb

@peterkops6431 Год назад

Thanks Prof👍🏻👍🏻

@gondwana6303 Год назад

Kudos on another very well done video -- on the unthinkable. I especially liked your scenarios and note that in fact Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deescalations. I wish you would write a similar article for the FT, which sorely lacks such insight.

@Gaming4Justice Год назад

As an Estonian, I am pretty sure that he will use nuclear weapons. He would rather nuke Washington than give up in Ukraine. That man has nothing to lose.

@behroozkhaleghirad Год назад

And it seems that the Europeans really enjoy cornering a starving, injured and mad bear. The most sane solution

@swazzercool9060 Год назад

Nuking US would mean nuking back Russia. Putin knows this

@hung-upear2659 Год назад

@@behroozkhaleghirad He was the one who digged a hole for itself though

@0816M3RC Год назад

@@behroozkhaleghirad Putin is responsible for putting himself and his country into a corner.

@marrs1013 Год назад

@@behroozkhaleghirad Please try to remember that 1, Putin attacked towards the NATO/EU border, bringing the war right to the border. The West never done such thing even in the worst part of the Cold War. 2, Russia is starving and injured only because of Putin. Russia is not the enemy. Putin is. Even Russias enemy!

@jediTempleGuard Год назад

Thank you. Subscribed.

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Thank you very much indeed. I really appreciate it. A very warm welcome to the channel!

@oihanlarranegi472 Год назад

Really well presented. Until now I had discarded any idea of using nuclear weapons as simply madness, but you point out very interesting and (sadly) plausible scenarios. Of course, then we must consider the idea of wether the Russian nuclear arsenal is really mostly operative, or has lost its power due to a lack of maintenance. Either way, bad times, let's hope reason prevails.

@Tethloach1 Год назад

It comes down to mind games, it is naturally madness. Tactical deturrance. Non use, thresh hold for use, checks and balances, power projection, deterance. Destructive capacity, targets, end game, consequences, expectations, political, other , etc.

@liamnacinovich8232 Год назад

Even if only %10 of the Russian arsenal is operational they could still do unfathomable damage to the west. While I agree I am skeptical that all of their weapons are operational or even functional I doubt they have lost their ability to do considerable damage to the west.

@AwtaMadik Год назад

What's really scary is the caliber of leaders we have in office right now compared to what we had back during to the cold war.

@theotherohlourdespadua1131 Год назад

Like Kennedy that led us to the Cuban Missile Crisis and Ronald Reagan?

@stevenagy88 Год назад

The West has actually been quite competent in its responses, whatever you and I may think of its leaders.

@liljes34 Год назад

@@stevenagy88 if I was Putin and Biden was the one representing US and it’s decisions, I would be feeling like who knows what’s actually going on behind the scenes at the white house. And I would be a lot more likely to be distrustful.

@oraz. Год назад

Definitely

@sloshed-rat Год назад

This is like trying to rob a bank with a bomb strapped to your chest, "Give me what I want or I'll kill us all."

@justasklimas9572 Год назад

I feel like a crucial question here is the reaction from China, and Russia's expectations of how China would react. China holds considerable leverage over Russia, and probably would be able to dissuade Russia if it really wanted to. The question is, how does Beijing view the subject?

@j.a.b.nijenhuis8124 Год назад

China’s official doctrine is that China itself will only go nuclear if and when it had itself been attacked by nuclear weapons. This is likely strongly influenced by the border disputes they have with a number of neighboring non-nuclear states (Nepal, Vietnam, Mongolia, islands in South China Sea). If those conflicts ever escalate into active warfare, China does not want to be potentially subject to nuclear attack. Thus, China has a strong incentive for those neighbors to remain non-nuclear weapons. A key way to achieve this is by those neighbors not feeling the need to develop nuclear weapons. How do you do this? Make it clear that you do not consider first-strike an option and uphold the taboo on using nuclear weapons. If China’s smaller neighbors see Russia (a large state with nuclear weapons) use first-strike in a war of aggression, they might worry that China will do the same, and thus try to create their own nuclear programs. What China might do in response to a Russian first strike on Ukraine, I don’t know. But they are unlikely to support it, and the Kremlin hopefully knows this

@Maudios Год назад

@@j.a.b.nijenhuis8124 Interesting take, although im not so sure if any of the countries you mention have the capacity to even try and acquire nuclear weaponry, although i must admit my knowledge on the area is very limited, so i welcome any kind of correction :)

@marrs1013 Год назад

If the West backs down after a Russian nuke over the sea, China would invade Taiwan the next day. The same thing with NK/SK. A nuke must trigger a full conventional destruction, otherwise there will be no 'fear' of using them. It will just become the 'killswitch' against the West, and every wannabe world leader dictator will start to use it. Until someone decides to 'up' the threat, and drop it on a city somewhere. Then what?

@NomadJoe0323 Год назад

China wants the war over asap. The war is having a negative effect on the global economy while China continues with its disastrous zero covid policy.

@seungjunrhee Год назад

China has very developed and powerful hostile powers right next to its population centers: Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. These are all countries with domestic access to state-of-the-art technologies and a robust nuclear sector that enables them to quickly arm themselves with nukes should push come to shove. While Japan is constitutionally unable to develop nukes (because it's quite obviously an offensive weapon) and the western powers were very keen on stopping South Korea and Taiwan when they tried to develop nukes back in the 70s and 80s, it will become extremely hard to convince the three nations once Ukraine gets hit by Russian nukes. Thus I would guess that China would be very interested in nuclear non-proliferation.

@Fyrlss Год назад

Great Job Professor! A very thorough research and logical thinking process! If Russia uses tactical nukes, no matter how small, sooner or later, the radiation will reach NATO members. 1. If this happens, do you think that NATO would declare war on Russia or would they cower and try to sweep it under the rug? 2. If consequentially EU declares full war on Russia, do you think that the US would immediately go to war or typically drag its feet? 3. If Ukrainian troops attack the newly annexed regions, do you think that Putin will immediately resort to WMDs or will he go for lesser options like long-ranged ballistics, scuds ,....? 4. If Putin decides to use tactical nukes, do you think that he will throw several smaller ones or just a big one to make his point, like turning a major city into a crater?

@Asamations Год назад

Another great video James! It's honestly terrifying that countries such as Russia have sunk so low as to threaten other countries with nuclear weapons... I thought we moved on from this? Hopefully Russia doesn't commit such a horrifying act or if it does, it causes the least amount of damage possible...

@ahmad-pz1cc Год назад

Thank you

@paramahansayogananda6719 Год назад

You are the smartest youtuber I’ve seen. Thanks for your videos.

@GB-gi9by Год назад

Him and Mark Felton are in a class of their own imo

@CodeSwag Год назад

What about the possible use of Chemical/Biological weapons? It demonstrates that they aren't bluffing while not as major as going nuclear.

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Thanks. Great question. It would really depend. Chemical weapons are now completely outlawed and so it would be a very serious violation of international law. And it's also not clear what it would achieve. I think it would merely strengthen resolve to push back on Russia. As for biological weapons, I think it is very unlikely that these would be used. In, truth they are not a significant threat. Countries actually hate using them. They are the ultimate example of the law of unintended consequences in international security. They can't be controlled. (Although, this could be changing with the possibility of genetic weapons that could affect very specific populations.) The thing about a nuclear weapon is that it would be so monumentally serious that it would literally stop everyone in their tracks with shock. That's what the strategy relies on.

@Gaming4Justice Год назад

I just saw your post about finishing up with the video! :D // Also no views gang

@ukilectric Год назад

What uncertain times!

@Trofusky Год назад

Great video as always, Professor. I'm happy you commented on the offshore bomb option, I feel like it isn't getting enough coverage as an option Moscow might undertake. If Russia did drop the bomb, is there a route you think is most likely? I personally don't believe Putin would use it, as with India and China making their disapproval of Putin more clear by the day, a nuclear bomb would isolate Russia in a way I don't think they'd be able to bare should the war continue past that point.

@draegonlore2408 Год назад

"Nuking to de-escalate a conflict" reminds me of Pearl Harbor or the blitz to break morale. It's never worked in the past, and if Russia dares try it now, I only believe the resolve of Ukraine and its supporters will harden in response.

@ukilectric Год назад

The contexts are quite different, though. Usage of nuclear weapons chnages the whole equation; it's a threat with annihilation, not just of Ukrainian cities, but also those of supporters (who by far only had to cope with economic backlash).

@live_free_or_perish Год назад

The genie is out of the bottle. The only way to prevent the use of nuclear weapons is to prevent military aggression.

@killroy8976 Год назад

Could you do a video on the current state of affairs in Lybia? That whole situation still confuses me somewhat.

@tiredox3788 Год назад

Makes you wonder what would've had happened if Ukraine kept them Nukes.

@TheFirebird123456 Год назад

In all likelihood russia would invade to get them back. Basically what's happening now but in 1992 or 3. Yelchin was threatening that. Furthermore, there wouldn't be much western support for ukraine as the west thought it was far better to have only 1 nuclear power in the region instead of multiple. If u look at the treaty that guaranteed Ukrainian independence u see the USA and UK there as well. I don't think the world was ready for a nuclear armed ukraine or the dozen of other post soviet countries to be nuclear armed, too much chaos and possibility of nukes to go missing.

@Pavlos_Charalambous Год назад

I believe that Putin's threats about using nuclear weapons have more to do with braking the morale of public opinion in the West than anything else.. Also " nuking to descalate things" logic sounds more like wishful thinking of behalf of Russia than an actual plan that can work

@danwylie-sears1134 Год назад

Whether it hypothetically could work isn't the most important thing. What's most important is whether they believe it could work. If they think could, then we have to have a response ready to go on a moment's notice. That response has to include having there no longer be any such country as Russia, having there no longer be any such person as Vladimir Putin, and arranging for some country (probably China) to take custody of Russia's nuclear arsenal. Anything less, and we're all dead from proliferation, sooner or later.

@theotherohlourdespadua1131 Год назад

That was the original plan by the scientists in the Manhattan Project back in 1945. When they concede that such a stunt won't do much to force the Axis to surrender, the decision to use it against a population center was considered...

@iattacku2773 Год назад

Reagan : Is the threat real Woods: Yes sir. I believe it is

@elizabethmorton4904 Год назад

Thank you for another very helpful video. The one issue I hoped you might refer to directly is how Xi Jinping would respond to the use of nuclear weapons. China does not like this war - would such an escalation lead to Jinping pulling support, albeit it very quietly? China has a lot to gain from Russia's defeat, as it could then move in on Central Asia more directly, and the border issues with Russia would disappear. Russia might end up as a client state or colony of China - hardly an unpleasant prospect for China. You did address this very indirectly, saying that international response is hard to predict, but - I was just disappointed you didn't directly address China's interest.

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Thanks a lot. Really great point. I did think about trying to second guess the reaction of various countries, induing China, but it would have become too long and rather too speculative. But I really should try to do a video on the Russia-China relationship more generally.

@nigelclifford8405 Год назад

China probably would want a slice of the Arctic region, so they would probably try to get hold of Eastern Siberia, if Russia was destroyed. They already class themselves as a near Arctic State even though the most northerly part of China doesn't even reach the latitude of Scotland because they are obsessed with having a foot hold in the Arctic!!!

@NeoMark627 Год назад

While this is frightening I think that is unlikely that Russia would use nuclear weapons. Use of nuclear weapons would ensure essentially indefinite western sanctions. And while not certain I believe China would similarly be hesitant to trade with a nation willing to use such weapons. China as an ascending power I would assume would want to keep the worldwide taboo against nuclear weapons. China's current and future military power wouldn't mean much if the use of tactical nukes was acceptable. And being cut off from the West and China would cripple Russia. Though as a counterpoint this war has shown that Russian leadership isn't burden with an abundance of rational thought.

@bilic8094 Год назад

I don't think China would care they most likely would like to see less western involvement in conflicts so if this stopped that I think they would be fine with it as for what the western countries could do next against Russia probably not much more than has been done up till now excluding a retaliatory strike.

@NeoMark627 Год назад

@@bilic8094 I actually think that is another reason China wouldn't want this. Russia using nuclear weapons would push NATO and aligned countries closer together. China already seems annoyed that this war is causing NATO to expand. A nuclear strike would consolidate NATO further.

@bilic8094 Год назад

@@NeoMark627 China will likely hold a balance again leaning towards the Russian side more because if Russia falls they know they would be next so I wouldn't pin my hopes on China coming to the aid of the west if things escalate dramatically.

@CodeSwag Год назад

@@NeoMark627 How would China helping its adversaries takeout their adversaries help China??? If Russia goes down China is next and Beijing knows that. When the 3rd in-line to the US presidency visits your rebel province and promises to defend them , it would be foolishness of the highest order to help such a country take down Russia.

@theotherohlourdespadua1131 Год назад

@@bilic8094 Doubtful. A nuclear strike on Ukraine would be seen as the very example why every country SHOULD have nukes. It's bad enough that the invasion of Ukraine is already a great example of why countries should have nukes (much to North Korea's vindication), the actual use of nukes would further push everyone with lingering conflict to have their own as insurance. PRChina has a lot of enemies at kissing distance to it, primarily RoC-in-Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan and PRChina doesn't want them to have nukes...

@hugodesrosiers-plaisance3156 Год назад

Hello again Professor. If I may venture a second intervention, I'd like to share a thought. I was just watching Gen Kimmitt on CNN explaining what the contingency plans are in case of a nuclear strike, and it occured to me : all these well educated, smart, experienced Generals we see, Kimmitt, Hodges, Petraeus, they are never *afraid* to give their most honest professional assessments and opinions. This has to be one the most vital ways in which the Western military doctrine is superior to the Russian one. I thought it was reassuring.

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Thanks. This is actually incredibly important. It is vital that senior military officials can speak their mind. It's vital that political control over the armed forces is always maintained, but that doesn't mean that senior officers should be afraid to say what they think to those in power.

@seneca983 Год назад

4:00 South Africa is missing from this list.

@johnashton4086 Год назад

A well-reasoned presentation Professor and promotes serious thought. Even a bluff of using such weapons should place Russia as a pariah for generations. Their actions to date in Ukraine have probably done so already. When the reality of what Putin has caused eventually becomes apparent ( as it will ) to the Russian people and especially their youth what is likely to happen? The impact on the collective psyche of being universally shunned and despised may well cause an accelerated decline in an already declining society. The people immediately underneath the rotten geriatric pinnacle of Russian society may understand this and act to forestall the damage. I, as an admirer of many aspects of the Russian character and intellect, can only hope. Else, the country faces mid-term disaster.

@vredacted3125 Год назад

Something important to know, for all who are interested in history and/or support Ukraine: Rus' ought not to be confused with modern “Russia”, which derives its name from the Rus' but historically is a completely different state, which almost all its existence was at war with the Rus'. Just like the Holy Roman Empire was actually Germany, “Russia” is actually Muscovy, despite their best attempts to convince everybody otherwise. Its name “Russia" received only around 1721, when Peter I simply changed Muscovy’s name into the “Russian” Empire (Russia originates from Rosia, name used by the Greek Orthodox Clergy in regards to Rus') Under the reign of Cathrine II Muscovites where even punished for continuing to identify as Muscovites, and were forced to call themselves Russian. Lands that Russia (Muscovy) claims were part of the original Rus', but actually weren't, are Novgorod, Suzdal, and Ryazan, since in historical texts of XI-XII centuries they are mentioned as separate entities from Rus'. They can be considered parts of extended Rus', although their culture was distinct from main Rus'. In 1493, Muscovite duke Ivan III appointed himself to be the Great Ruler of All Rus'. No other kings acknowledged that. From that point on Muscovy started to make false claims on Rus' ownership. “Russia” is an offshoot of Ukraine and not the other way round, despite what Soviet and Russian (Muscovite) historians have been trying to say for years. A Slavo-Finnic (*emphasis on the Finnic*), Mongolized offshoot. Kyiv was a developed cultured capital when Moscow was just another swamp village. Germany used to call itself the Holy Roman Empire, that didn’t mean they became the Romans, and all of a sudden had a right to claim whole of Italy and its history, but yet, that’s exactly what Russia (Muscovy) did in regards to Rus'-Ukraine, which is a horrible injustice!

@13thefullmetalone13 Год назад

Great video, I had not considered that a nuclear bomb might be used politically to leverage peace talks. I wonder how China, India, and members of the CSTO would react to nuclear escalation.

@pansepot1490 Год назад

“Leverage peace talks” = “Blackmail Ukraine into accepting losing part of its territory”

@marrs1013 Год назад

It would mean they found the 'killswitch' on the West. China would invade Taiwan, NK would invade SK, etc. All they need to do stop the West from intervening, is to explode a nuke over the sea somewhere.

@antons5302 Год назад

China? India? A collection of self-serving empty generic words is all you can get from those

@13thefullmetalone13 Год назад

@@pansepot1490 Well Kind of, I was thinking more how it might make ukraine's allies push them towards peace talks, I was Kind of thinking only how it might affect Ukraine itself. If you wanted me to express a stronger moral stance in my phrasing, I didn't feel the need to given that we probably all agree that Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is vile, unjustified, and leads to the death of counless innocents not only in Ukraine and Russia, but around the world, before we even start to talk about how it violates international law.

@13thefullmetalone13 Год назад

@@antons5302 That is currently true, but I wonder with how much nonchallance they can get away with when a goddamn nuke is deployed.

@nromk Год назад

If it happens I think we'd all be shocked

@ukilectric Год назад

I don't know, media seems to be doing a jolly good job of prepping us for this outcome...

@nromk Год назад

@@ukilectric is it, like it's leaving it all as a hypothetical situation which is maybe why no one can give a concrete answer to Russia using nukes

@obo7707 Год назад

Ive commented on other videos concerning this very issue. Let me say i agree that we(the west) should take Putin seriously. Why? 1) Perhaps it is easier(to be prepared) and more effective , to be on heightened alert , than not to be. 2) Putin had threatened to invade Ukraine before the invasion , and almost EVERYONE doubted the threats. Why? As Neville Chamberlain did in the prelude to WWII( signing an appeasement agreement with Hitler) , it was clear noone wanted to think about , therefore wanted to avoid , the horrific possibilities , instead of admitting and facing the threat. 3) What does a well- entrenched autocrat ( one who thinks nothing of using extreme , barbaric violence when it furthers his goals) do when backed into a corner? He plays his cards. Now , i believe he honestly is doing all he can NOT to use the last card he has. He has tried to scare the West in multiple ways- repeatedly threatening the West with nuclear weapons , then partially shutting down the gas Europe imports from his country, claiming 'repairs were needed ' for the interruption of supplies ; then allegedly sabotaging his own pipelines , also threatening nuclear powerplants , etc. But if Putin doesnt see an exit , or a way to save face ( such as signing a ceasefire agreement while still holding onto some Ukrainian territory ) while maintaining his hold on power , he MAY choose the last card he has. If so , what or where , would he target? I think the idea of detonating a bomb as a warning, in the black sea to be unlikely. Rather , i see 1) , One last warning. Then 2) An overwhelming strike on either the capital , or perhaps the entry points in western Ukraine , where all the aid from NATO comes into the country. The issue i worry about , as many others do , is the Western response. Our side might be backed into a corner ( to retaliate with nuclear weapons), as Putin is now(in that he has given himself no reasonable options( or exits) in order to stop the war. However , analysts have stated we could mount a devastating CONVENTIONAL attack on their nuclear depots. But what about their subs? What if one of their bombers, preloaded with nuclear bombs, get airborne? The good news is im sure all of that has been considered. The bad news is , it could still happen anyway. Great analysis in this video , thank you

@bartvissers4682 Год назад

Excellent video as per; insights I hadn't considered at all until now. The picture of the nordstream pipeline sabotage under the heading of hybrid warfare of the west against Russia has been duely noted.

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Thanks Bart. I am really glad it was useful. I wanted to make it precisely because I think that there is a view of nuclear weapons in the West that is very different from how Russia understands them. We need to understand this and be extra careful. And the hybrid warfare element could indeed be ramping up.

@RaviKumar-vk2wx Год назад

Great analysis. Love from India.

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Thank you very much indeed!

@RaviKumar-vk2wx Год назад

@@JamesKerLindsay in todays highly polarised times we simply cannot expect such analysis from our tv news media and i wish u great success ahead.

@ariefferdaus31 Год назад

Thank you so much for this video, James. You’ve articulated everything I have in my head and your last part where you talked about a possible precedent of using nuclear weapons to de-escalate a conflict is something I never thought but is very true (such as between India and Pakistan or North Korea and South Korea)! I think it is a worrying moment as Russia’s invasion is failing and Putin is already engaging in desperate measures including semi-mobilisation of citizens to the war. It’s not a stretch to say Russia may use coordinated small-sized nuclear weapons to prove its point. For me, I think if Russia were to use actual nuclear weapons in the scene, a form of de-escalation is painfully necessary although we then have to creatively figure a way to ensure Ukraine’s sovereign territory remains safe from the illegal referendums in the Donbas. And other countries may eventually have to take actual clear stances towards Russia as many countries, like Malaysia, are still trying to be balanced while critical towards the invasion. Again, thank you so much James!

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Thank you so much Arief. It is worrying because it is plausible that this is the strategy that Putin may be tempted to follow. I think the danger is that many, especially in Western countries, have a very fixed idea about nuclear weapons - strategic armageddon - that they haven't realised that there is another view in Russia. And I think a lot of people around the world would call for de-escalation. Again, here in Europe we have a very clear view of Russian aggression. In many others places, that just isn't the case. It seems to be seen as a European problem.

@ariefferdaus31 Год назад

@@JamesKerLindsay Fully agreed. I think this invasion launched by Russia is a groundbreaking case where we see classic IR conventions like MAD being challenged openly. And Russia seems to have its own views on nuclear weapons as you mentioned which makes their future actions even more unpredictable. I anticipate that those outside from Europe would really call for immediate de-escalation regardless the costs for Ukraine’s sovereignty since Russian aggression seems too distant for those outside of Europe. The big challenging cost for de-escalation is Ukraine’s own sovereignty as illegal referendums and Russian annexation are on their way. Very worrying and challenging! 😢

@dawnmoriarty9347 Год назад

@@JamesKerLindsay I think this is a particular blind spot of Westerners. The unwillingness to acknowledge that other viewpoints exist. On the rare occasions it's acknowledged, the response is "they're crazy, must save them from themselves". This is arrogant and ultimately futile imho

@brianmo7763 Год назад

It's time for a reform to the UN Security Council.

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

I agree. But it’s just not possible, unfortunately. At least not in a way that would repair the most serious problems.

@Todd.B Год назад

we may find out very soon as Russia officially has made the announcement these areas are not part of Russia and as Ukraine is very close to trapping some of Russia's finest troops in Lyman. I saw someone request a video on Iran, I would also love an update on that situation. May your weekend be anxiety free.

@aicedf974 Год назад

Well, It's likely to a be a some haggle trick. Tis obvious that Russia is going to lose the newly annexed lands, though they can use them as to propose a false deal to Ukraine. I consider the proposition of pre-war status-quo a possibility, but Ukraine is unlikely to agree to that. Anyway, Crimea will be the real subject of future negotiations, I suppose

@TheJHMAN1 Год назад

I think you meant are"now" part of Russia. Russia will not give back the eastern areas having annexed them today. Ukraine does not have the man power to retake it, Ukraine must acquire nukes for its self to prevent any further land grabs by Russia it is the only way Ukraine will survive.

@MrTheWaterbear Год назад

You missed the clarification of military doctrine of Russia that allows the use of tactical nuclear weapons on Russian territory, no matter the threat or justification.

@markdowding5737 Год назад

Great video! I would really like a video on what the annexation of Ukrainian territory means for Transnistria. With Putin showing increasing imperialistic ambitions and talking about bringing back to the motherland the Russians who were left outside the country after the dissolution of the USSR, I don't understand why Russia hasn't even acknowledged Transnistria as a country. Unlike the Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts, they appear to have a genuine will to join Russia. Do you think things might change in a near future?

@runningcommentary2125 Год назад

Because Putin has the attention span of a child. He forgot about the Ukrainian separatists when he attacked Syria and he only started paying attention to them again when his thugs were kicked out of Kyiv.

@mojewjewjew4420 Год назад

If Russian prematurely recognizes Transnistria then ukraine will attack it, also Russia cant annex it without a land border

@meziembamara4004 Год назад

It is the WEST who are likely to be more aggressive . Ever since 1991, it was.

@jamesmill325 Год назад

The more clearly you understand yourself and your emotions, the more you become a lover of what is.

@eaglesclaws8 Год назад

this was inevitable...

@donaldhysa4836 Год назад

If losing Krimea is too much of a humiliation from Russia to bare, the very likely military intervention of the West in case of a nuke would only seal that humiliation with no silver linning for Russia. There is no scenario where Russia actually gains something from using a nuke

@rpgbb Год назад

I think it’s time to watch again “Dr. Strangelove or How I stopped worrying and started loving the Bomb”. If you haven’t watched, it’s highly recommended that you do. “In Freedom with our bodily fluids” “Gentlemen, this is the war room, you can’t fight here!” “Men, I reckon this is it, toe-to-toe Nuclear combat with the Ruskies” “Mein Führer, I can walk!” 🤣

@natalianatalie9818 Год назад

Not in the thunder of a cosmic catastrophe, not in the flames of an atomic war, and not even in the grip of overpopulation, but in full, calm silence, the history of mankind ends

@tauceti8060 Год назад

What about bombs that are technically not nukes but are use to willfully pollute and area with radioactivity I think they are called "Dirty bombs".

@behroozkhaleghirad Год назад

Cobalt-60 for example. That's even worse, but they don't have the taboo of nukes

@NikolaHD Год назад

This is a very good video James! I agree on most points here. United States is the last country in the world with right to tell others not to use nuclear weapons or not to attack others. I also don't think that Russia will use nuclear weapons mainly because than there will be no need in starting mobilization. Once the reservists are on the ground in Ukraine, the end of the conflict will be near. Ukraine cannot keep with offensive operations for much longer. While it is gaining territory it is also losing massive amount of soilders and heavy equipment in the process. The main reason Ukraine is gaining territory is because there is around 75.000 russian soilders in Ukraine and its faaar from enough for anything. Question is how cappable is russian high command because as far as i see, Putin fired alot of high command staff. Since Russia is a communist state (lets not joke around), high command will lie to its leader in order to gain something.

@Will-kt5jk Год назад

4:05 - didn’t S.Africa also have nukes at one point?

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

It did indeed. It gave them up after Apartheid.

@mojewjewjew4420 Год назад

Never though I'd hear a nuclear strike as de escalation tool but here we are, i guess russians are truly built differently no joke.

@x0UncleSam0x Год назад

I think you're forgetting the internal pressure of populations completely.

@soundmind9772 Год назад

Before Russia considers the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine, it would do well to consider other options that may produce a better result. For example, what about an offer to withdrawal from the NPT followed by an open invitation to a limited number of states to also withdraw from the NPT in exchange for the transfer of nuclear weapons to such states under very strict, enforceable, conditions? This could even include Ukraine and the return of a portion of their previously-removed nuclear arsenal in exchange for a peace agreement.

@Maxkraft19 Год назад

I don't see de-escalation after a nuke as posable. Russia would have crossed every line. There would be no basis for negotiations. Even the most peace loving Europeans would have a hard time working with Russia if Putin was still in power.

@philjameson292 Год назад

Hi Prof, love your work. What would be your opinion about the following? Hundreds of thousands of military age men have fled Russia to avoid the draft. What would it take for them to be organised as a positive force for political change within Russia, as I think only Russians themselves can stop the war

@keepmoving1185 Год назад

Posting to help the algorithm

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Thank you!

@MalachiMarvin Год назад

My fear: I think Putin has less to lose in a limited nuclear exchange than the west does. Russia's economy is largely based on resource extraction where as the west has built a complex, vertically integrated economy that produces advanced goods and services (and weapons). From his perspective, a nuclear exchange would level the playing field. I guess that highlights an important difference between the old Soviet Union and Putin's autocracy. MAD worked with the Soviets because they were actually interested in building something and that was wholly incompatible with nuclear war. Putin on the other hand appears to only be interested in power.

@pascualgomez7839 Год назад

Idk what the reality on the ground but I'm just glad I took Donetsk and Luhansk off my list of collections of Nations!!

@motokokusanagi820 Год назад

Russian nuclear attack could be the push to reorganize the earth political system. Maybe Nation State at last step aside, for Human State, One state for all human, or something entirely new to organize human society

@JonLondrezos Год назад

I never thought that in 2022 we would be talking about the possibility of nuclear attack!

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Indeed. It is scary precisely because, contrary to popular perceptions, there are those who argue that a nuclear strike need not be a sure path to a wider nuclear exchange.

@TechTehScience Год назад

I believe there's also one outcome of a Russian nuclear strike that hasn't really been analysed due to its lengthier development, but it could spark a mass proliferation of nuclear weaponry. If Russia shows itself willing to use nuclear weaponry in offensive wars against non-nuclear opponents, and the West being unwilling to enter a direct conflict, it could lead to the opinion that the only way to defend Western Democracies, especially those bordering Russia, from a repeat, is to spread the ability of nuclear strikes throughout, to deter future invasions.

@japteshwarsingh5866 Год назад

Excellent video but i don't think even India or China will support Russia if it uses nuclear weapon

@NomadJoe0323 Год назад

Hard to say. India is very hard to read. I don’t think we can say that for sure.

@theotherohlourdespadua1131 Год назад

@@NomadJoe0323 Yeah, let Russia set a precedent for Pakistan to do the same thing if it feels like its existence is being threatened...

@mike-williams Год назад

Russia has not shown itself to be a negotiator in good faith through the course of the conflict. How does using a nuclear weapon on any scale signal it is ready to negotiate honestly?

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Excellent point Mike. It doesn't. But under this scenario, it would appear to indicate that Putin understood that the war was lost and wanted to negotiate a face-saving deal. That's the danger. Many other countries may then put pressure on Ukraine and the West to take the negotiated peace option. This would show that nuclear weapons can work. On the other hand, further escalation could have catastrophic consequences. This is what makes all this so incredibly worrying.

@lucianboar3489 Год назад

Don't think Russia would gain much if it uses it as a show of force instead of on the battlefield or somewhere militarily significant. Why would Ukraine care about that? It's like a nuclear test and everyone knows Russia has the weapons anyway. If it's in what they consider their territory it would allow them to use their defensive purpose narrative but it would show weakness too, having to resort to that on your land. I guess somewhere in the direction of Nikolaev is the most likely, in my view. They could say it's defensive, but just outside their borders, to prevent an advance on Kherson.

@CCRyder-df9xf Год назад

I would imagine a buffer zone state along the lines of Russian Ukraine being formed. Everyone winz

@motocount Год назад

Regarding the use of nuclear weapons to de-escalate a conflict, this is not something new. In fact, it is the Russian nuclear doctrine of the last decade and western armies are aware of this! The Russians have published documents that describe it. So, counter-plans should exist.

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Thanks. You are absolutely right. But what is interesting is that many people beyond policy circles don't know it. That's the point. That's why Western officials are (rightly) become nervous about what is happening. They know that there is a different view of nuclear weapons in Russia.

@burprobrox9134 Год назад

I’m more worried about gas than nuclear. Didn’t they use chlorine in Syria already?

@shakiMiki Год назад

It's a stretch to find logic in use of nuclear weapons. It just highlights it was never useful weapon.

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Thanks. Unfortunately, though, there is a logic. It is highly dangerous. And risky to an unacceptable degree. But it is still a logic.

@ukilectric Год назад

I should think it's quite a useful weapon if it gives your country an anti-invasion card.

@vinniechan Год назад

There is no such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon Once you adversary launched one you don't go ah it's a small one

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Indeed. There is a body of opinion that says there aren’t two classes of nuclear weapons. But in fact that body of opinion would probably say that context is everything. And I think any serious policy makers would have to weigh this up very, very carefully. For all our sakes!

@behroozkhaleghirad Год назад

Then why would Russia use a small, tactical nuclear weapon instead of wiping out Lviv?? If they are going to do it and pay throughthe nose for it, based on your logic let them at least do it in proper size

@vinniechan Год назад

@@JamesKerLindsay I think Douglas MacArthur explore that option during the Korean war Basically to create a zone on the border so radio active that Chinese troops couldn't enter But that was a time before thermonuclear weapon By the way you in the list of countries that possessed nuclear weapons you left out South Africa under apartheid

@mykofreder1682 Год назад

If you are afraid of talk about nuclear weapons, what will be the reaction to real use, if you appear too weak to stand against nuclear talk you invite their use. Talk should harden the position to make the talker believe you mean it and will respond to a nuclear attack, if they think they can use it a little bit and you will do nothing they will use it if it frightens those that oppose them.

@wessexexplorer Год назад

Having read a response to this idea of escalation to deescalate, I really think it comes down to the west’s determination to maintain the agreed borders of Ukraine- which Russia signed up to - as shown in your video. We can’t allow Putin to use the threat of nuclear weapons to take whatever territory his wishes, on the basis that he can walk Russia down a path of I win or its world war 3. Russia should expect devastating consequences for its forces in Ukraine and those near it supporting the war. This can be done without planes or ships from leaving NATO territory. This would make it impossible for conventional forces to operate in Ukraine leaving Ukraine’s armed forces freedom to operate and liberate its territory.

@Sharyf Год назад

Its either to give secutity guarantees or to let (help) Ukraine to return nuclear status as deterrant. Other wise Russia, Cina will go on an annexation spree. And only security guarantees would deter the new nuclear race among non nuclear nations.

@kramalerav Год назад

When it comes to Ukraine acquiring nuclear status, NATO has to be forward thinking. A Zelenskyy administration won’t be in office forever. There is no guarantee that ten to fifteen years from now, Ukraine becomes so anti-Russian that a military dictatorship comes to power there. Do we really want (another) such regime to be nuke capable? History has shown that indeed heroes can live long enough to see themself become the villain.

@HelloThere-ls7yf Год назад

Officials are not a serious source in these days.

@cesticvaljda Год назад

- hard times create strong Slavs - strong Slavs create hard times - hard times create strong Slavs

@marrs1013 Год назад

Until they find out what's available in Western supermarkets, then they just want to switch side and have a good life. Nobody migrated to Russia from the West yet. Not even other slavs living in the EU. Why is that, you think?

@tnorthrup1986 Год назад

The thing you didn't comment on was the annexation by Russia of those four regions of southern and western Ukraine. I may be a major pessimist here, but if Ukraine continues to make gains, I don't see a way that Russia avoids the usage of nuclear weapons now. Most of this territory is now avowedly Russian and based on their doctrine I think a tactical use is now the best case scenario. I actually am a pessimist in this area and think Russia will more likely than not use a full strategic nuclear weapon or more, perhaps against Kharkiv or Odessa. I would not be surprised by a full out volley to end the Ukrainian state and nation by taking out them, Kyiv, and Lviv. Putin has proven himself both irrational and dug in. I just don't see how this ends well. I hope I'm wrong.

@liljes34 Год назад

That is a terrifying image

@JamesKerLindsay Год назад

Thanks. It was a bit tricky as it only took place on the day the video was released. It takes time to edit and so I have film a day beforehand. Sorry about that. (I wish I had the resources of a news channel!)

@tnorthrup1986 Год назад

@@JamesKerLindsay it isn't a problem, but it does/did change my calculus about what is reasonable to expect. I understand the logistics of a small channel.

@richardcgs2001 Год назад

The lecture ought to have been entitled "How likely is a tactical nuclear strike in Ukraine?" Of course, use of tactical nukes is possible; indeed, given the course of the war, the probability is high absent the Ukrainian offensive coming to a halt. In my estimate, the nuclear strike is likely to consist of one to two dozen atomic weapons aimed at military targets both on and behind the fronts of Xarkiv-Lugansk and Kherson with a view to breaking the military cohesion and dealing a decisive blow to command and control of the Ukrainian offensive forces. That is why Putin is mobilizing, as rapidly as possible, large numbers of poorly trained conscripts; it is not important that their conventional military effectiveness will be low. They will simply advance in the gaps in Ukrainian lines, opened up by the tactical nuclear strikes, while dodging mushroom clouds and ambient radiation in an attempt to occupy vast swathes of territory beyond Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhe and Kherson to compel Zelenskiy to sue for peace on the basis of territorial concession to Moscow. The only option for NATO will be direct conventional military intervention to stymie the Rusian breakout by massive airstrikes as the shock and manpower losses effectuated by the tactical nuclear strikes will render many Ukrainian ground units unable to fight effectively.

@gagetolinwrites6845 Год назад

I wish that I could say "I don't think Putin is stupid enough to actually nuke Ukraine", but I can't. Surely, he must see that a targeted nuclear strike against Ukraine (presumably Kyiv) would cause international backlash, the likes of which we haven't seen since Saddam in the late 80s/early 90s. This invasion has already driven a wedge between Russia and several of the their allies, namely Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. With China likely unwilling to support Russia after such a strike, and Iran nearing a full-fledged revolution, Russia is very isolated right now. I fear for the future of the existence of a Russian state, and worry for the Russian (and ethnic minorities) living there. At the current rate, it's not looking like there will be a Russian Federation in a decade or two. Side note: It's very clear that Vladimir Putin doesn't wish to recreate the USSR, Russia has made no strides in adopting any Soviet-era economic programs. He wants to recreate the Russian Empire it seems. As he becomes an increasingly cartoonish villain, I wouldn't be shocked if he declared himself Tsar.

@theotherohlourdespadua1131 Год назад

What is the USSR if not the Russian Empire colored red?

@Maudios Год назад

i believe the changes of a russian tactical strike are growing steadily by the day, and i truly cant imagine what would the answer be from the west. any kind of direct military intervention seems very unlikely, and more economic sanctions dont seem to be very useful bc they are not accepted widely enough by the international comunity for them to have an impact in the short/medium term, but i dont think they would allow something like this to go impunished... o well, at least i hope so. As others have mentioned, i think what Beijing thinks is a very important variable, but i dont hace enough knowledge ti develop more what could happen from this.

@NomadJoe0323 Год назад

If Russia uses a wmd the USA/west will have little choice but to take out Russia once and for all. They would be a threat to safety and peace in the world.

@user-fk8rb8ue5h Год назад

From what I can make out we could make a pretty mess of them using conventional weapons if they dared to use any nuclear weapons in Ukraine. I don't think he will bother. One thing is for sure he isn't going to sacrifice himself.

@mondlimchunu8489 Год назад

Eh, Prof Kerr-Lindsay, as a South African I feel slightly aggrieved. As the 0NLY country to have developed & given up its Nuclear Arms, due entirely to politics, u overlooked us in your summary of Nuclear Powers. Just saying 😌

@banto1 Год назад

From a logical viewpoint it doesn't make much sense to use a nuclear weapon just to send a message. If Russia is going to have to deal with the consequences for taking such action, I would presume they would want it to have much more impact than simply to send a message about a willingness to discuss peace talks. Given what we know about internal Russian politics, I am pretty sure there will be a strong voice to simultaneously take out all major Ukrainian cities and then blame it on the Chechens. The West will face a fait accompli and life will go on with Russians sitting on their vast oil and gas reserves while Europe freezes and most Western economies continue to collapse.

@pascalramael5678 Год назад

Well if he throws one... Then I hope Russia receives the same.

@adamradziwill Год назад

With cost of “black gold” at 15-23 dollars per barrel, the USSR economy collapsed, and the sovok itself collapsed, and the "golden" horde ("russia") budget can only be fulfilled only with oil price at $ 42.4 and higher

@geomcc39 Год назад

There are Nuclear weapons small enough to be delivered by Drones to there target ! Drones can avoid radar and fly low the enemy would have No way of knowing were they are.

@Hubbellification Год назад

Sadly with the advent of a nuclear missile carrying train heading to the donbas and nuclear submarines in the black sea, your prediction of Russia making a nuclear strike in the open sea an increasingly realistic possbility.

@user-ri1ti6go7s 4 месяца назад

Ha&nt Russia withdrawn from some international treaty about using nuclear weapons... Maybe last year. ?

@Aussie-Mocha Год назад

The best choice in how and when to use a nuclear weapon is- NEVER . I am very confused after the events of the last few weeks. I know who is winning and who is in control of the situation. The fact that this is one side winning the ground war and the other having the ability to over power and control the outcome…. Is not a comfortable position