@@marcosgarvey7129None of the pro Ukraine people want to admit that Ukraine has likely taken nearly the same number of casualties as Russia largely fighting the same doctrine on both sides. Only Russia has about 4M more available population.
In this lies all the disorder of the West - a Swede would like to decide who will be the president of America? He would probably also decide on the president of Russia...
If you have "Tony" from Calcutta employed as your customer service then I'm done with your product/service. They're not our friends. I try to do that with Made In China as well, but it's obviously much more difficult
Of all the commentators on the Ukraine war, Hodges is the most worth listening to. Many people are using Russia's threats of nuclear weapons as a cover for their opposition to the war -- people who want to buy peace and pay for it with Ukraine's territory. Incidentally, how many generals have books on Caravaggio and Vermeer on their shelves?
There a number of people when I see them mentioned I click straight away. Ben Hodges is one! I would like to know why and what the implications are of the US recently stationing tactical nukes in the UK?
Oh no.. retired UK generals with a life expentancy of a couple of years are not afraid especially with terminal cancer they are brave to take on the risk of nukes..
One of the many good things of Ben Hodges is that he knows very well the whole cold war scenario of soviet times (from inside the military) and the current situation. So he thinks considering the whole picture. Somehow he approaches the current conflict not as a separate isolated thing but as an unresolved issue that goes on since cold war times and the fall of the URSS. In a way, despite the delusional perception of this issue we all had during the last two decades, we are still in the same cold war with Russia than 40 years ago, with different (and worsen) nuances.
There's a targeting cell in multiple intelligence agencies that keeps track of Putin's location around the clock, as well as his oligarchs, family, friends, Generals, and nuclear triad key leaders, not to mention all the systems. But Putin has been bribing the B___n family for decades, though how far can you trust a traitor?
Going nuclear for me would mean the text book open use of nuclear weapons in a tactical role. Such as a nuclear mine as a cover for retreating forces. Or perhaps the use of a nuclear torpedo or something similar on an oil rig. All the NATO stuff I ever saw about this says it just escalates. Think about the moves, do nothing and Russia may keep doing it. Go full conventional and expect Russia to use nukes on these conventional forces. You are continuously forcing NATO to say no to using nukes as a reply, that is a terrible place to be. I think there is a good chance we could get through that but it will be horrendous. We would need to go to a digital doomsday clock for this due to the fractions of a second we are playing with.
He knows what people mean with the first question. That more instabile , smaller countries armed with ukes and åprone to have dictators running them is worse than one big dictator ruled country. You can´t always have as a starting point that those having nukes will think rationally. Kiev, as a revenge would be a target to get Zelensky
There is no difference in using a tactical nuke or a ballistic nuke from a policy point of view. a nuke is a nuke. the policy intent is the same. its like saying if i shoot at you with a 9 mm or if is shoot at you with a 50 cal its less escalatory. both have the intent to kill you if they are shot at you. you are not gonna say oh it was only a 9mm so its not a big deal lol.
The entire Ukraine war makes no sense to a normal person. Not an argument to presume the use of Nukes makes no sense to Putin. Lets also keep in mind the Russian military has gone along with Putin on this mis-adventure. Obviously people mean a "significant" use of nuclear weapon. Destruction of a major target (city, military base, etc) or a release of nuclear radiation leaving a part of Ukraine un-usable for years. Escalation to the point where Russia thinks it may use nuclear weapons against NATO. I.e. avoid a slippery slope to WW III. Collapse of the Russian State (not Putin) leads to many unknows in East and Central Asia - where Russia is often a stabilizing influence and certainly a counter to Chinese influence. In my view, this the major reason for NATO reluctance for maximum support for Ukraine and for continued Chinese tepid support of Russia. China has already won, it is in the process of deciding just how much more it wants to win, that is, how weak does China want Russia to be at the end of the war?
The entire Ukraine war makes perfect sense, to a point, from a Russian point of view - "normal" or not. Their constant & decades long paranoia with "containment" and "enemies on the border" is one of the root causes of the conflict - if Ukraine went into the EU & especially if it went into NATO then there is no buffer zone between Russia & NATO & Russia "cannot have that". Throw in a healthy bit of resource control & economic boost and some good ol' Russia patriotic fervor and you can see the benefits to doing it. The problem is that every step of the way Russia has overestimated its own capabilities & underestimated Ukrainian. First it was supposed to be essentially a coup - have a friendly govt in Kiev that would turn Ukraine back toward Russia. Then it was intimidation by taking over Crimea & fomenting trouble in the Donbas. Finally it was supposed to be a 3 day tour of central Ukraine that would bring the country back to Russia before any Western response could be made. If it had worked at any of those 3 steps then Putin wins a glorious victory with little ramification. All 3 of those steps at one point made sense & had a good chance of prevailing and at no point would realistically have exposed Russia to nuclear war. Now - it's another story. Yes Russian generals went along with the invasion - just like Hitler's generals went along with his invasion & just like American generals went along with the invasion of Iraq. Would American generals have launched a nuke @ Baghdad if Bush had got frustrated? Doubtful. And I think a reasonable conclusion can be made with the Russian generals - they would see the writing on the wall.
Where the buffer between russia and Nato in the case of the Baltic states? Or Norway? Or now Finland. That argument Ukraine in Nato is dangerous for russia doesn’t hold any water.
"The entire Ukraine war makes no sense to a normal person"... absolutely it does. Russia's strategic safety and peace of mind, is paramount to Russia itself and it ought to be for the west too.
@@robertdickson9319 You're talking from a blinkered position, informed and closely aligned with the western media narrative. Peace makers have to look at things from both sides, to find the common ground. That means people like you have to accept this war was deliberately triggered by the US.
Those who knows the town of Shee-No-Bee will tell you the sad story. Until today anyone want to go there still need a guide to take them in. 30 yrs plus still unliveable. So..do you all want a nuclear war..?👈😕😕😕
"No positive outcome for Russia, if they do it." But Putin, defeated (lost Crimea), might not be thinking in terms of "benefit for Russia". Putin, facing his destruction, might then only think in terms of detriment for Ukrainians, NATO, and "the West".
Nope. He absolutely would not unless Russia was attacked first. He may fear NATO but he's not stupid. When it comes to nuclear weapons, using words such as "mini" or "tactical" means absolutely nothing. A nuclear bomb is still a nuclear bomb and the intent is still the same regardless of the size of the bomb.
@@LRRPFco52 If I were Putin I would trust my own judgement. In Russia you can't really trust anyone. They're all a product of the USSR where lying in order to not get in trouble and to benefit yourself was the norm.
The headline-title here ... dum' question! The Pootin is every bit as sane as was Adolf Hitler; and get this- -no nation with nukes in its toy-box would give up without some. We can take our answer from the ancients, in words to the effect: "Always leave your enemy with a face-saving way out ..."
"Force Putin to go nuclear" is not a thing. The only accepted use for a nuclear strike is the concept of MAD. Since Crimea is Ukrainian territory by international law, a conventional attack to reclaim it is obviously not a "force to go nuclear". We can safely act as if Russia does not have nuclear weapons, especially since Putin has already taken sovereign territory from Ukraine. As such, Ukraine can target Russian territory and annex it at will, if they so choose. If Russia responds with a nuclear strike, that would signal the official start of a NATO-Russian war, as a nuclear strike on the border of NATO is an act of clear agression. I do not understand why people are debating this. The only people that should take responsibility for this is the Russian people. We will only react according to known protocol the Russians are aware of.
There won't be more to come out. Book keepera are basically data analysers, they know the odds of things happening and it will stand out like a sire thumbe when something lile this happens. Their models would flag this immediately.
The question needs to be asked, for sure. I doubt that Putin would be so stupid as to launch an ICBM to the US, and more doubtful still that a Russian ICBM would even take off. Now, would Putin nuke Ukraine? I also doubt it. A nuclear strike would guarantee a harsh response from NATO that would weaken Russia so much to become a vassal state to China. Russia is out of friends and allies. What options would Russia have but to be at the mercy of Xi? Do the oligarchs think that's worth giving up their mansions in Miami, flats in London, investments in the West and their children attending US Ivy League schools for an egomaniac who brought them to this very point and whose days are counted? Putin might be crazy, but the oligarchs are not.
Once again, I cannot disagree with ex-Gen. Ben Hodges. I still think we are being overly optimistic, however. On the one side, I see today (26 June 2024) that Ukraine is losing ground and on the other that Putin cannot continue for long like this. So I don't know what to believe.
I wonder if "Putler" has also gotten "nuclear weapons" from his old friend in North Korea? The Russians themselves would be shit scared to launch those ... 🤭
It's always nice to hear a sound mind discussing dangerous threats. I'll offer something else. Do the Russian nukes even work? At the start of the invasion of Ukraine we saw numerous serious equipment failures in the Russia army that were caused by lack of maintenance. The money for that work having been stolen by generals in this Russian kleptocracy. Why would they do it? Because they didn't think the weapons would be used. As General Hodges mentioned, the threat of mutually assured destruction made it unthinkable that anyone would go to their nuclear arsenals. If using nukes is almost entirely unthinkable, what better place to steal from than nuclear missile maintenance programs? The generals were willing to embezzle maintenance monies from equipment far more likely to be used, so why not steal from the one category of weapons that were NEVER supposed to be used? Whether or not this is true, Putin has to factor that into his decision making.
It's always safest to assume that they do. While nuclear weapons aren't as simple as conventional bombs, standard atomic bombs like those in tactical nukes are relatively simple and reliable. It's the hydrogen bombs that degrade quickly.
@@paulp4201 Of course it is safest for us to presume they will work. I'm not suggesting we strike Moscow on such a pretense. I'm saying it should run through Putin's mind that they might not. And the launching of any of them might result in a failure that also results in retaliation. There are more things than just the nuclear material to a weapon system working correctly. With a political culture of kleptocracy held together by personal loyalty and fear, such corruption is commonplace. The western world sees far less of this, and far more quality control. I saw a video yesterday that showed an artillery piece that was blown to smithereens, purportedly by a North Korean shell exploding in the barrel. The barrel was blasted in such a way to make that seem likely. Defective weaponry is not uncommon where personal profits can be gleaned through shortcuts. There just aren't as many checks against it.
@@domino20 My point is that evidence of poor maintenance of army weapons is widespread, and so Putin should be concerned that his nukes, the one category of weapons that was never going to be used, might not work. I didn't say, nor should it be assumed I did, that we should presume that they don't work. We can wonder if they work or not, but we can know that Putin has to wonder about that in ways the west does not.
Eh.. actually most tactical nukes have larger yield than nukes used in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Its true that they are much smaller but thats only thanks to advances in technology.
How do you know 'most' NSMW's have larger yields than WWII? The US B61-12 'Dial-a-yield' free fall bomb has four options: 0.3kt, 1.5kt, 10kt and 50kt. Hiroshima was 15kt and Nagasaki was 25kt. The W48 shell has a yield of only .072kt. The W52 has a yield as low as .01kt (equivalent to only 10 tons of TNT).
@@mattihaapoja8203 'You're fighting it' (old saying). We're talking tactical nukes - not the 360kt mod. And while they won't use the old W54 in a Davy Crocket they absolutely will use the W48 and W82 out of current 777 155mm howitzers. They are 0.1 and 2kt yield respectively. 1,000 W48's artillery tactical nukes were made, which is a big chunk of total US stockpile.
@@Klemheist-vf1hx You work in the factory :-D? To my knowledge all w48 were retired and dismantled. Their replacement W82 got canceled before any major amounts were manufactured.
The problem is that crazy people, fanatics, wack jobs, do not think rational. The problem you must look at who they are, not believe that they think like you. Putin's war was insane from the begginng. The loss far outweighs any gain already.
Putin can't afford to find out if Russia's nukes even work. Imagine the same generals telling you that "everything's fine" are the same ones who told you you'd be in Kiev within 72 hours 849 days ago.
Ethical & healthy solutions to problem solving. Why not allow a russian state asset an RT operative go on times radio? in russia media debate is instant prison but healthy non violent debate with their propagandists in the west may result in dinners with new friends that have debated state view points minus the SS being involved. shows the russians their media can be debated without the russian SS raiding their homes
NO..... even he is aware of at least 2 facts ....1) if he did use them in areas he considers is Russian territory, he would not be able to use that territory for hundreds if not thousands of years 2) Launching an attack would result in M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) he may be crazy in many respects, but, he DOES know the severe consequences of such an act, as does every other leader throughout the planet.
Hodges, "Putin will never use nukes." Putin uses nukes. Hodges, "Whoops!" Let Putin save face and keep what Russia has taken. Frozen wheat fields in the middle of nowhere isn't worth WW3.
The more pertinent question is whether America will resort to nuclear war to maintain its empire. When empires face extinction the decision making becomes irrational , erratic and potentially catastrophic for everybody.
We don’t need to, nor do we want to. The only scenario in which a nuke would be launched is one in which we had already been hit by nukes first, and I imagine it would take more than one.
How is that more pertinent than if Russia will use nuclear weapons? The US isn't about to US nuclear weapons on anyone, the only chance they might use them is if Russia starts using them.
There is no reason for the US to use nukes unless they are launched at us. If Russia uses tactical nukes in Ukraine, the US and it's allies would retaliate against Russia, but they wouldn't have to go nuclear in that attack.
Gen. Hodges has been wrong in all his predictions over the course of the war in Ukraine. We're into it's second decade now and I can't understand why people are still asking for his opinion.
Just a mention of nuclear weapons in today's time of conventional precision weapons is a sign of weakness.
It’s the behaviour of a gangster who gains advantage by extortion.
And yet, here we are taling about the consequences, what was his intention.
@@StillAliveAndKicking_ but there is no advantage...thats the who point
Nope, bending over and doing what you're told is.
Yes America/nato has been extorting the world for decades.
If only we had more people like Ben Hodges
I’m a veteran of our US Army as a medic. I can’t think of a better man’s perspective than this
US Army worst ctriminels, forgot Irak, Iran, Lybia, Syria, shame
So impressed with General Hodge’s logical analysis here. Comforting as a reminder of the quality of America’s military.
Man I love Mr. Hodges.
I think he is married
It would be strategically stupid for Putin to use tactical nukes. But avoiding obviously stupid things has not stopped Putin in the past.
Some genius advisor of him...
If you push this button you win!
Putin *is* incredible stupid. Otherwise he'd never started this lose-lose war.
Somebody remember Putin doing a clever decision???
@@larzkruber822 I'm resigned to it not being an issue either way. He loses because he can't be rewarded for doing as he did.
Putin is not stupid and you'd be very mistaken to underestimate him.
Thanks for remixing this message into a shorter form. More people need to hear that Putin's threats are empty.
there are not empty, ond day his patience is over
@@giselameunier4788impotence leading to impatience ...
Love this guy ,make him in charge please.We need real leaders in the free world.
Ben Hodges for President ❤❤❤
I love your judgements! 🇺🇸💖🇩🇪🇺🇸❤🇩🇪🇺🇸💜🇩🇪
Love any interview with Ben Hodges.
Thanks Ben, this is precisely what I've said about the nuclear threat since day one.
Ben Hodges needs to be listened to more.
A great guy and a realistic person of military experience 😊
he said Ukraine will take back Crimea from Russia in 2023. in 2024 Ukraine looks like its gave Russia more territory instead of taking Crimea.
@@marcosgarvey7129None of the pro Ukraine people want to admit that Ukraine has likely taken nearly the same number of casualties as Russia largely fighting the same doctrine on both sides. Only Russia has about 4M more available population.
At last someone in the know. This should be put out on more social media channels to counter the russian misinformation campaign.
AMEN!
Love hearing this specialist . Wish there were more like him
Honestly, i do not care of putin using nukes or not… because the reality is: never ever give in to blackmail…
So don’t give in to blackmail even if it destroys the world?
@@domino20 yes !! NEVER EVER give in to blackmail
Yes and we should have never given Czechoslovakia to Hitler even if he had nukes
@@bradgraystock5966 to much vodka comrade ? 😂😂😂
iot is a warning , West should take it seriously
Me. Hodges, most Russians love the idea of an empire even if it costs them their freedom and/or life
Thank You General. Much Respect.
Cda.
As a Swede i vote for Ben Hodges for the US president in 2024!
In this lies all the disorder of the West - a Swede would like to decide who will be the president of America? He would probably also decide on the president of Russia...
if only....
You are getting fooled, Swede. I thought you guys were smarter.
@@SnakeEngine or you have something to learn about the world
@@jeanettebrannstrom2320 There is a world outside of US news, just so you know. Btw, Assagne just got free.
As usual, Sir Hodges is making a lot of sense. What a relief from the myriad of Indian Kremlin supporting channels on TH-cam.
If you have "Tony" from Calcutta employed as your customer service then I'm done with your product/service. They're not our friends. I try to do that with Made In China as well, but it's obviously much more difficult
Of all the commentators on the Ukraine war, Hodges is the most worth listening to. Many people are using Russia's threats of nuclear weapons as a cover for their opposition to the war -- people who want to buy peace and pay for it with Ukraine's territory. Incidentally, how many generals have books on Caravaggio and Vermeer on their shelves?
The only Sane channel regarding Russia.
There a number of people when I see them mentioned I click straight away. Ben Hodges is one! I would like to know why and what the implications are of the US recently stationing tactical nukes in the UK?
lile they had in Ukraine , Bioweapons
But what if Putin wants to leave this world with a bang? The guy is crazy.
Oh no.. retired UK generals with a life expentancy of a couple of years are not afraid especially with terminal cancer they are brave to take on the risk of nukes..
Why would Putin use nukes? He'd never get to enjoy his $140 billion palace in Sochi lol
He might think he's a member of the Almighty RuZZian Master Race. 😂😂😂😂
One of the many good things of Ben Hodges is that he knows very well the whole cold war scenario of soviet times (from inside the military) and the current situation. So he thinks considering the whole picture. Somehow he approaches the current conflict not as a separate isolated thing but as an unresolved issue that goes on since cold war times and the fall of the URSS. In a way, despite the delusional perception of this issue we all had during the last two decades, we are still in the same cold war with Russia than 40 years ago, with different (and worsen) nuances.
The US had mini tactical nuclear weapons, too. The Jeep launched Davy Crockett
Yes, the Davy Crockett battlefield nuclear weapons were decommissioned in 1971.
The Davy Crockett was badass
It is said that the US knows EXACTLY where Pootin is all of the time and he would be target #1 in any kind of nuclear exchange.
This man is to intelligent to be a President of USA and I am not a yank ,what a shame that country can’t find someone like him to do the big job
It just invites retaliation. Because the alternative cannot be tolerated
There's a targeting cell in multiple intelligence agencies that keeps track of Putin's location around the clock, as well as his oligarchs, family, friends, Generals, and nuclear triad key leaders, not to mention all the systems.
But Putin has been bribing the B___n family for decades, though how far can you trust a traitor?
Ben is the guy to lead Nato
Going nuclear for me would mean the text book open use of nuclear weapons in a tactical role. Such as a nuclear mine as a cover for retreating forces. Or perhaps the use of a nuclear torpedo or something similar on an oil rig.
All the NATO stuff I ever saw about this says it just escalates.
Think about the moves, do nothing and Russia may keep doing it.
Go full conventional and expect Russia to use nukes on these conventional forces.
You are continuously forcing NATO to say no to using nukes as a reply, that is a terrible place to be. I think there is a good chance we could get through that but it will be horrendous.
We would need to go to a digital doomsday clock for this due to the fractions of a second we are playing with.
25 years ago on March 12, 1999 Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland officially joined NATO.
don't over think Putin....because there's nothing behind those eyes...
He knows what people mean with the first question. That more instabile , smaller countries armed with ukes and åprone to have dictators running them is worse than one big dictator ruled country. You can´t always have as a starting point that those having nukes will think rationally. Kiev, as a revenge would be a target to get Zelensky
interesting point..
There is no difference in using a tactical nuke or a ballistic nuke from a policy point of view. a nuke is a nuke. the policy intent is the same. its like saying if i shoot at you with a 9 mm or if is shoot at you with a 50 cal its less escalatory. both have the intent to kill you if they are shot at you. you are not gonna say oh it was only a 9mm so its not a big deal lol.
If he’ll know the response would be the same then hell no 😂😂
The man is bang on. Once again.
The entire Ukraine war makes no sense to a normal person. Not an argument to presume the use of Nukes makes no sense to Putin. Lets also keep in mind the Russian military has gone along with Putin on this mis-adventure.
Obviously people mean a "significant" use of nuclear weapon. Destruction of a major target (city, military base, etc) or a release of nuclear radiation leaving a part of Ukraine un-usable for years.
Escalation to the point where Russia thinks it may use nuclear weapons against NATO. I.e. avoid a slippery slope to WW III.
Collapse of the Russian State (not Putin) leads to many unknows in East and Central Asia - where Russia is often a stabilizing influence and certainly a counter to Chinese influence. In my view, this the major reason for NATO reluctance for maximum support for Ukraine and for continued Chinese tepid support of Russia. China has already won, it is in the process of deciding just how much more it wants to win, that is, how weak does China want Russia to be at the end of the war?
The entire Ukraine war makes perfect sense, to a point, from a Russian point of view - "normal" or not. Their constant & decades long paranoia with "containment" and "enemies on the border" is one of the root causes of the conflict - if Ukraine went into the EU & especially if it went into NATO then there is no buffer zone between Russia & NATO & Russia "cannot have that". Throw in a healthy bit of resource control & economic boost and some good ol' Russia patriotic fervor and you can see the benefits to doing it.
The problem is that every step of the way Russia has overestimated its own capabilities & underestimated Ukrainian. First it was supposed to be essentially a coup - have a friendly govt in Kiev that would turn Ukraine back toward Russia. Then it was intimidation by taking over Crimea & fomenting trouble in the Donbas. Finally it was supposed to be a 3 day tour of central Ukraine that would bring the country back to Russia before any Western response could be made. If it had worked at any of those 3 steps then Putin wins a glorious victory with little ramification. All 3 of those steps at one point made sense & had a good chance of prevailing and at no point would realistically have exposed Russia to nuclear war.
Now - it's another story. Yes Russian generals went along with the invasion - just like Hitler's generals went along with his invasion & just like American generals went along with the invasion of Iraq. Would American generals have launched a nuke @ Baghdad if Bush had got frustrated? Doubtful. And I think a reasonable conclusion can be made with the Russian generals - they would see the writing on the wall.
Where the buffer between russia and Nato in the case of the Baltic states? Or Norway? Or now Finland. That argument Ukraine in Nato is dangerous for russia doesn’t hold any water.
Russia=terrorists. Terrorists do NOT stabilise anything except their regime
"The entire Ukraine war makes no sense to a normal person"... absolutely it does. Russia's strategic safety and peace of mind, is paramount to Russia itself and it ought to be for the west too.
@@robertdickson9319 You're talking from a blinkered position, informed and closely aligned with the western media narrative. Peace makers have to look at things from both sides, to find the common ground. That means people like you have to accept this war was deliberately triggered by the US.
Totally off-topic, but I love those yellow Reclam books in the background... I didn't know he lives in Frankfurt and is married to a German
Fairly right said as always Mr, Hodges! 👌Slava Ukraini 💙💛
Depends on the strings thats tugging him.
BRAVO!!!!!!!
Уверен что если Путин и применит нюки, то сделает это он сразу по странам НАТО. Зачем нам бомбить свои земли
Those who knows the town of Shee-No-Bee will tell you the sad story. Until today anyone want to go there still need a guide to take them in. 30 yrs plus still unliveable. So..do you all want a nuclear war..?👈😕😕😕
"No positive outcome for Russia, if they do it."
But Putin, defeated (lost Crimea), might not be thinking in terms of "benefit for Russia".
Putin, facing his destruction, might then only think in terms of detriment for Ukrainians, NATO, and "the West".
exactly
Nope. He absolutely would not unless Russia was attacked first. He may fear NATO but he's not stupid. When it comes to nuclear weapons, using words such as "mini" or "tactical" means absolutely nothing. A nuclear bomb is still a nuclear bomb and the intent is still the same regardless of the size of the bomb.
If you were Putin, would you trust your Generals when they tell you that the nukes even work?
@@LRRPFco52 If I were Putin I would trust my own judgement. In Russia you can't really trust anyone. They're all a product of the USSR where lying in order to not get in trouble and to benefit yourself was the norm.
'Attacking Russia' means anywhere in the annexed territories in Putin's mind.
Is this the same guy who said Ukraine army will take Crimea in 2023?
Can't be correct all the time 😊
The headline-title here ... dum' question!
The Pootin is every bit as sane as was Adolf Hitler; and get this-
-no nation with nukes in its toy-box would give up without some.
We can take our answer from the ancients, in words to the effect:
"Always leave your enemy with a face-saving way out ..."
And make sure he gets the message. If not-
-he will be back.
Next instalment title "Son of Putin rides again."
What we should ask ourselves is would Hitler use nukes because Putin is like his apprentice
Why dig out an old video and label it 1 hour ago?
Ben , you rock mate 👌 Slava Ukraini
What if russian silos didnt open
Then you'd hear: "Moscow, we have a problem!" 😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@bassbuffricky lol
"Force Putin to go nuclear" is not a thing. The only accepted use for a nuclear strike is the concept of MAD. Since Crimea is Ukrainian territory by international law, a conventional attack to reclaim it is obviously not a "force to go nuclear". We can safely act as if Russia does not have nuclear weapons, especially since Putin has already taken sovereign territory from Ukraine. As such, Ukraine can target Russian territory and annex it at will, if they so choose. If Russia responds with a nuclear strike, that would signal the official start of a NATO-Russian war, as a nuclear strike on the border of NATO is an act of clear agression.
I do not understand why people are debating this. The only people that should take responsibility for this is the Russian people. We will only react according to known protocol the Russians are aware of.
There won't be more to come out. Book keepera are basically data analysers, they know the odds of things happening and it will stand out like a sire thumbe when something lile this happens. Their models would flag this immediately.
The question needs to be asked, for sure. I doubt that Putin would be so stupid as to launch an ICBM to the US, and more doubtful still that a Russian ICBM would even take off.
Now, would Putin nuke Ukraine? I also doubt it. A nuclear strike would guarantee a harsh response from NATO that would weaken Russia so much to become a vassal state to China. Russia is out of friends and allies. What options would Russia have but to be at the mercy of Xi? Do the oligarchs think that's worth giving up their mansions in Miami, flats in London, investments in the West and their children attending US Ivy League schools for an egomaniac who brought them to this very point and whose days are counted? Putin might be crazy, but the oligarchs are not.
Once again, I cannot disagree with ex-Gen. Ben Hodges. I still think we are being overly optimistic, however. On the one side, I see today (26 June 2024) that Ukraine is losing ground and on the other that Putin cannot continue for long like this. So I don't know what to believe.
Putin cannot beat Nato in a conflict. So why wouldnt he use them?
uploaded 1 hour ago.....the same video from a week ago. clik bait strikes again. thumbs down everyone for click bait
I wonder if "Putler" has also gotten "nuclear weapons" from his old friend in North Korea? The Russians themselves would be shit scared to launch those ... 🤭
It's always nice to hear a sound mind discussing dangerous threats.
I'll offer something else. Do the Russian nukes even work?
At the start of the invasion of Ukraine we saw numerous serious equipment failures in the Russia army that were caused by lack of maintenance. The money for that work having been stolen by generals in this Russian kleptocracy.
Why would they do it? Because they didn't think the weapons would be used.
As General Hodges mentioned, the threat of mutually assured destruction made it unthinkable that anyone would go to their nuclear arsenals.
If using nukes is almost entirely unthinkable, what better place to steal from than nuclear missile maintenance programs?
The generals were willing to embezzle maintenance monies from equipment far more likely to be used, so why not steal from the one category of weapons that were NEVER supposed to be used?
Whether or not this is true, Putin has to factor that into his decision making.
Logical analys, thanks
It's always safest to assume that they do. While nuclear weapons aren't as simple as conventional bombs, standard atomic bombs like those in tactical nukes are relatively simple and reliable. It's the hydrogen bombs that degrade quickly.
@@paulp4201 Of course it is safest for us to presume they will work. I'm not suggesting we strike Moscow on such a pretense.
I'm saying it should run through Putin's mind that they might not. And the launching of any of them might result in a failure that also results in retaliation.
There are more things than just the nuclear material to a weapon system working correctly.
With a political culture of kleptocracy held together by personal loyalty and fear, such corruption is commonplace.
The western world sees far less of this, and far more quality control.
I saw a video yesterday that showed an artillery piece that was blown to smithereens, purportedly by a North Korean shell exploding in the barrel. The barrel was blasted in such a way to make that seem likely.
Defective weaponry is not uncommon where personal profits can be gleaned through shortcuts. There just aren't as many checks against it.
It’s a dangerous gamble to assume the weapons wouldn’t work.
@@domino20 My point is that evidence of poor maintenance of army weapons is widespread, and so Putin should be concerned that his nukes, the one category of weapons that was never going to be used, might not work.
I didn't say, nor should it be assumed I did, that we should presume that they don't work. We can wonder if they work or not, but we can know that Putin has to wonder about that in ways the west does not.
Eh.. actually most tactical nukes have larger yield than nukes used in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Its true that they are much smaller but thats only thanks to advances in technology.
How do you know 'most' NSMW's have larger yields than WWII? The US B61-12 'Dial-a-yield' free fall bomb has four options: 0.3kt, 1.5kt, 10kt and 50kt. Hiroshima was 15kt and Nagasaki was 25kt. The W48 shell has a yield of only .072kt. The W52 has a yield as low as .01kt (equivalent to only 10 tons of TNT).
@@Klemheist-vf1hx Well they aren't using ancient artillery driven tactical nukes in 2024. The Modernized b61 has a yield of up to 360 kilotons.
You're questioning a man who has made war his job, he has probably forgotten more than you will know about war and it's apparatus
@@mattihaapoja8203 'You're fighting it' (old saying). We're talking tactical nukes - not the 360kt mod. And while they won't use the old W54 in a Davy Crocket they absolutely will use the W48 and W82 out of current 777 155mm howitzers. They are 0.1 and 2kt yield respectively. 1,000 W48's artillery tactical nukes were made, which is a big chunk of total US stockpile.
@@Klemheist-vf1hx You work in the factory :-D? To my knowledge all w48 were retired and dismantled. Their replacement W82 got canceled before any major amounts were manufactured.
Ukraine will liberate Crimea by the summer of 2023 - We all remember Ben Hodges predictions.
Bingo
The same hodges who said ukraine would take back all of the territory russia won? Lol
The problem is that crazy people, fanatics, wack jobs, do not think rational. The problem you must look at who they are, not believe that they think like you. Putin's war was insane from the begginng. The loss far outweighs any gain already.
Hirosima
15 kt atomic bomb
60000 death in 1 second!
That is tactical bomb today.
Are you crazy???
Do hydrogen atomic bombs give off radiation, way less than uranium right?
A really small bit I would guess, but way less than an older non hydrogen atomic bomb.
There’s massive radiation given off by these things.
Same saying about war in Ukraine and now, people die as prisoners for execution
Россия точно не применит ядерное оружие по Украине. Зачем портить свои земли а вот по Европе может. Первые кандидаты Англия и Польша
host sounds like another appeaser
❤Ukrainian ❤
There's a rule that if the video title is a question, the answer is a NO.
I agree, our reality is fundamentally boring
clickbait to monetize
It’s called Betteridge's law of headlines.
No. It's a rarity if there's any answer at all.
This is an old interview recycled...
I want Biden to listen to Ben Hodges.
You and millions of others,he talks common sense .
Biden knows it already. Show this to MAGGOTS Who yells that americans are starting ww3 and only Donie can save the world lol
I'd imagine Biden has people like that in his team. Tramp on the other hand is on poo tins team
Let's all hope Trump doesn't because Hodges is a warmonger whose previous predictions in this war have all been wrong.
Biden has been in Russia's pocket for 52 years. Putin has paid millions into shell companies run by James and Hunter.
Do you want to find out if Putin’s bluffing?
Putin can't afford to find out if Russia's nukes even work. Imagine the same generals telling you that "everything's fine" are the same ones who told you you'd be in Kiev within 72 hours 849 days ago.
Ethical & healthy solutions to problem solving.
Why not allow a russian state asset
an RT operative
go on times radio?
in russia
media debate is instant prison
but healthy non violent debate with their propagandists
in the west may result in
dinners with new friends
that have debated
state view points
minus the SS being involved.
shows the russians their media can be debated without the russian SS
raiding their homes
I like his logical considerations so very much.Thanks a lot from Denmark.🇩🇰🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦✌🏻
Ben Hodges is the voice of reason, his military experience and commonsense needs to be heard.
who even asked this stupid question ? it is sure that he does not want to use nukes, he would already did use them if he wanted to.
Hodges speaks some sense - unfortunately he is way too partisan and should stop electioneering on behalf of his beloved democrap party…….
It will be very good!
Because Russia is grown so weak!!!
It just pretends to be strong! 😂😂😂😂
NO..... even he is aware of at least 2 facts ....1) if he did use them in areas he considers is Russian territory, he would not be able to use that territory for hundreds if not thousands of years 2) Launching an attack would result in M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) he may be crazy in many respects, but, he DOES know the severe consequences of such an act, as does every other leader throughout the planet.
Spot on!
🇺🇦🇬🇧
if only he wasn't such a Trump hater.....
You should talk about West's many provoquacions towards Russia, West , USA, Uk respopnsioble for the situation,
Hodges, "Putin will never use nukes." Putin uses nukes.
Hodges, "Whoops!"
Let Putin save face and keep what Russia has taken. Frozen wheat fields in the middle of nowhere isn't worth WW3.
The more pertinent question is whether America will resort to nuclear war to maintain its empire. When empires face extinction the decision making becomes irrational , erratic and potentially catastrophic for everybody.
We don’t need to, nor do we want to. The only scenario in which a nuke would be launched is one in which we had already been hit by nukes first, and I imagine it would take more than one.
How is that more pertinent than if Russia will use nuclear weapons? The US isn't about to US nuclear weapons on anyone, the only chance they might use them is if Russia starts using them.
There is no reason for the US to use nukes unless they are launched at us. If Russia uses tactical nukes in Ukraine, the US and it's allies would retaliate against Russia, but they wouldn't have to go nuclear in that attack.
Dont be scared..we could be in Ukraine💙💛
I liked what Trump once said to North Korea. My button is bigger than yours
Shhhhhh. We're talking serious stuff here.
Ah yes, nothing screams "diplomacy" more than 1st grade boys fighting over candy.
My toy is bigger than your toy... - the mindset of a 4 year old.
Always did wonder if Trumps brain was smaller though???
And Putin has an even bigger button. On the other hand, when those buttons are pressed, there is no world to bolster their egos left.
Gen. Hodges has been wrong in all his predictions over the course of the war in Ukraine. We're into it's second decade now and I can't understand why people are still asking for his opinion.
The great thing about Hodges is he's always wrong. So if he says Putin won't use nuclear weapons we should be scared.
Yes, Hodges ideas and all the positive comments here are truly terrifying.
Hodges is always wrong.
Poutine told many times if West attacks Russia or sends Missels long distance to Ukraine WW3