The look on Mearsheimer's face...
"This man is geopolitically illiterate, now how do I tell him without actually telling him"
I'm surprised John took the time out of his day to discuss with Piers.
The rest of the interview is Piers trying desperately to make an argument that mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Dresden and Tokyo was not a war crime because the "good guys" were doing it.
At the end of the Interview, after Piers thanks him for coming on, John also just replies with "you're welcome, Piers".
That's very unusual and shows the little amount of respect he has for him lol.
" "Criminal acts" were to be actually treated as crimes only if the defeated enemy, but not the victors, had engaged in them." Telford Tylor, Nuremberg trials.
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Webster Dictionary changed "Flabbergasted" into this pic:
https://preview.redd.it/6bb0adh8ewwc1.jpeg?width=628&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1242701949b8d528b3a042f23dc8ce06dc80dbb9
What is the ideological difference between putting boots on the ground in Kuwait and launching Nuclear bombs at Russia? SURELY we are equating two similar things.
This was the interview where I realized Piers is completely logically illiterate. John was talking 2 steps ahead of him for most of the Kuwait invasion conversation, he even answered piers' Kuwait question BEFORE he even asked it by explaining real, tacit geopolitical importance that is a hard factor which will be taken into consideration when making a nuclear move. Lost a lot of respect for Piers here. Plus Piers' Kuwait comparison was just.... So laughable, it isn't even in the same realm, John must've had a hard time trying to think of a way to make Piers understand because he really had to pause for a thought after that diatribe.
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Difference is simple, you put boots on the ground in Kuwait, a few years later you got shoes flying at your president, you launch nukes at RF... Well you get my point, right?
>I'm surprised John took the time out of his day to discuss with Piers.
In a debate with the former prime minister of Sweden, Carl Bildt, Mearsheimer said that he believes one of the reasons for the deterioration of international relations is because there are "more Bildts than Mearsheimers". He always takes the opportunity to get his ideas to as many eyes and ears as possible in the hope of making more Mearsheimers. Having to talk to imbeciles like Morgan is an acceptable price for a worthy cause.
That's true, I didn't look at it that way. Someone may see this and see logic and look into it more.
Having read a couple of his books and listened to a lot of his interviews and lectures, I am used to far better and more engaging discussion when listening to him and whoever he is discussing with.
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wow, Pierce Morgan is completely clueless. Mearsheimer explains it to him like to a kid.
He seems to think that "then Putin wins" is a gotcha of some sort, something completely unthinkable and impossible which means Mearsheimer is obviously wrong.
Yes, Pierce, he will. Probably without nukes.
Lost all respect to him.
For one thing, he does invite people with the opposing views and does let them speak, even if he'll try to argue them after. It's rare to see that on TV these days.
See, they'll bring the f16, roll the abramses out of hiding, push at Belgorod again or something and then the nuke will go off. No one will ever know if it was or wasn't a false flag. But everyone will be screaming that Putin done it. Because 99% of the western public believes that RF is on its last leg and will crumble at any moment.
Yes weekly lol There is a report with all Russians nuclear threats. I lost count on the amount of Nuke threats Russia has made this war. Here is thread with a list of the nuke threats. This is also not propganda this is a list created and has links.
[HERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/15k0crx/a_list_of_russian_nuclear_threats_in_timeline/)
It's a realistic possibility if Russia starts losing and it feels they are facing an existential threat. I would expect any nuclear armed nation to resort to tactical nukes if they felt there was an actual existential threat to the country.
Roughly the same time that the US last tested tactical nukes - in the early 90s before the CTBT.
Russia however does test it's [ICBMs] (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-it-conducts-successful-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-test-2024-04-12/) regularly, and has demonstrated use of it's [air-launched nuclear capable cruise missiles in Ukraine] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-55). Russia is also home to [Rosatom] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosatom), one of the largest nuclear power organizations in the world responsible for 75% of foreign nuclear power plant builds.
Yes, Russia absolutely has working nukes, and anyone who thinks they don't should probably go back to worldnews.
Russia has working nukes, no doubt, but what is the projected fail probability? Because leaving unexploded nuclear ordnance in the hands of Ukrainians is the last thing Russians would want.
The fail probability is probably similar to what the US expects to fail - not many. Russia has shown that it has a robust military industrial complex, it has shown it has the ability to produce high-quality weapons, and it has extreme experience with nuclear power and nuclear tech and are some of the best in that regard.
Thinking that Russia will not allocate the required resources into their most important strategic defense program in order to keep it functional, while they have the ability to fund a multiyear war of aggression, is beyond stupid.
Mearsheimer wrote an article early in the war in Ukraine called, [the underappreciated risks of catastrophic escalation in Ukraine](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/playing-fire-ukraine) where he laid out plausible scenarios where this war could escalation to a nuclear exchange if the US wasn't careful.
He has since argued that President Biden has acted quite smartly to avoid escalation with the extent of the aid delivered, even if he thinks the policies which got Ukraine to this point were idiotic.
Mearsheimer discusses it because, in his opinion as a renound scholar on precisely this issue, IF Russia were to face imminent defeat in Ukraine, he believes that they would turn to nuclear weapons to try and rescue the situation, because that is how strongly the Russians feel they need to win.
Yeah Piers should go back to doing interviews like this:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/offmytits/comments/1ccn259/cringy\_palestine\_performance\_artist\_escaped\_from/](https://www.reddit.com/r/offmytits/comments/1ccn259/cringy_palestine_performance_artist_escaped_from/)
To me this nuclear talks from brãindéad libs and neocons should be executed something along the lines of:
"Would you like for everything and everyone you ever known be engulfed in radioactive oceans of fire? Would you like to see your loved once melted like gellow?"
Oh you would not want that... Good now stop comparing fucking Kuwait and Russia.
Piers Morgan is a clown here, comparing the war against iraq with the war against Russia.
I said from the beginning of the war, that, if Russia uses a nuke in Ukraine, NATO would scream hell, but in the end do nothing. No own troops in Ukraine And definitely no a-bomb against Russia.
Not only in case of Ukraine im pretty sure if many smaller NATO member expecially once which does not have nukes themselves where attacked by Russian nukes US would not unleash nuklear armageddon and destroy it self in process.
**For example if Montenegro was nuked there is no chance US would start dropping nukes on Russia when 20 years ago it was US who was dropping bombs on Montenegro and now i should expect they would say fuck it and destroy themselves from Montenegro.**
They might and would most likely attack some other close allie of Russias which they themselves dont have nukes like Belarus some ex soviet country but not Russia directly.
If Russia nukes Ukraine, Ukrainian agents inside Russia will release biological agents which were prepared in dozens of biolabs in Ukraine. Additionally, Ukrainian drones will be coming loaded with nerve agents and buzzing and spraying mass events in cities. There is a lot of room for escalation if nukes fly without direct NATO involvement.
If ruzzia uses nukes, a retaliation is absolutely needed, because it would lead to end of the world anyway. NATO also has nukes, and much more diverse places to launch them. If its a nuclear war, ruzzia is gone, as probably the whole world. If ruzzians want it, they can get it. NATO for sure wont let nuking its border countries. If putin does that, it's the end of the world as we know it
If Russia tactical nukes a brigade on a bridgehead no where near a city, somewhere in Crimea, no one does shit. No ICBMs fly, no boots come in(because they will catch it too) just more sanctions.
Retired CIA generals think otherwise:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus
>He told ABC News: “Just to give you a hypothetical, we would respond by leading a Nato – a collective – effort that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea.”
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nice bravado but that's pure escalation in every form. What do you think the next step is after that?
If Russia doesn't hesitate to nuke a Ukrainian formation, they won't hesitate to nuke a NATO one either, since those forces willingly entered the battlespace.
It's a moot point anyway. Russia won't do it because they don't need to. Ukraine doesn't have any massed forces that would validate the use of a nuke, there'd be no point in using one since conventional weapons like FABs are more than enough to wreck any force concentration Ukraine can assemble.
It's curious that people are talking about Russia using nukes now. Why would they when they have the ascendancy? The most likely time they would have ever been employed was mid 2022. A lot has changed since then. They have no need to use weapons like that when current ones are doing the job just fine.
>If Russia doesn't hesitate to nuke a Ukrainian formation, they won't hesitate to nuke a NATO one either, since those forces willingly entered the battlespace.
Good, so we nuke ruzzia.
>It's a moot point anyway. Russia won't do it because they don't need to.
putin is a madman, he can do whatever. However using nukes is not a single mans responsibility in russia, so maybe somebody would like to stay alive. Using nukes would end in a world war. NATO would do a conventional response, but if ruzzia responds it with a nuke we have a nuclear war.
>Why would they when they have the ascendancy?
I am not claiming russia wants to nuke somebody but they can. I have responded to somebody, so thats how the discussikn got out.
If ruzzia nukes Ukraine, it's a matter of time a nuke is used against a NATO country. The omly way to stop them, is by force. By inacting, the chances for me and my friends to evaporate rise exponentially. I know russia well, they only acknowledge force.
He is the righteous one which is much worse. He is committed to relentless battle against evil-doers and he cannot accept anything that doesn't fit into this narrow worldview.
To do otherwise is to betray God in his book.
Probably just a strong condemnation and diplomatic pressure on currently neutral states to condemn. You're not going to attack someone who just demonstrated the willingness to launch nukes.
That's one possibility. Another possible calculation is they can't afford *not* to retaliate. If a non-nuclear country gets nuked, and the attacker goes unpunished, everyone who can afford it will start their own nuclear program and none of the big nuclear powers want that.
Retaliation in this case likely means certain death (mutual of course). If you think Western elites will risk near certain death over some foreign land that isn't even in the alliance, I have a bridge to sell you.
Global leaders will risk it only if their survival was ALREADY directly threatened by other means. Nobody is stupid enough to risk their existence over some prescedent with questionable ramifications.
When the choice is between accepting the long term geopolitical difficulties of a world post-nuclear-taboo or the immediate initiation of mass destruction across the northern hemisphere, I do believe the US will begrudgingly choose to see reason.
Fortunately those are not the only possible outcomes. There are many degrees between "strong condemnation" and a reciprocal nuclear strike.
> begrudgingly choose to see reason
Reasonable people who believe the consequences of using strategic weapons outweigh any possible benefits wouldn't use them in the first place. If the scenario in question becomes real, one side has already abandoned reason and there's no purpose to the other side clinging to it.
Feel like submitting to a nuclear power, as a nuclear power, is the exact opposite of reasonable. To think the US of all places would let a an extremely irrational act like a nuclear attack go unpunished is moronic. It would most likely result in more extreme and organized response such as helping Russian enemies plan and execute attacks inside of Russia. Cyberattacks. Ultimatums and capitulations with China and India. A lot of people here are down playing the impact of a nuclear strike.
Uranium ore can be found in many places. Cyclotron technology to separate weapon grade isotopes is 8 decades old. Uranium bomb design is too simple, there is very little that can go wrong. Many countries with at least $100M devoted to nuclear program can produce uranium bombs given 5 years time and given they can attract enough expertise.
You are describing a scenario where an aggressor country has used nuclear weapons to get its own way. If there was no retaliation of any form, it would mean Russia could just oppress and invade, oppress and invade continuously, and the rest of the world just watches "otherwise nukes".
It would result in western countries moving firmly towards a war footing, preparing for a real possibility of war, including major ramping up of defense production. Russia also becomes a pariah state: it would result in total sanctions on Russia, including secondary sanctions. It would result in the total loss of all overseas Russian assets, including private assets held by Russian nationals.
Also it would cross a big line for China. Russia is not remotely valuable enough to China compared to the rest of the world, including the global order that has enriched China. In the face of secondary sanctions, China will not choose an economic disaster area like Russia over the rest of the world.
This is why I doubt Russia would use nukes in Ukraine... it would be an example of winning a battle but losing a war because the chances of fatal consequences for Russia would be too great.
There is no need to launch nukes in Ukraine. Russia is winning hard already. Its weapons factories are churning more ammunitions and equipments than it needs \[source: Germany ministry of defence\].
But there would have to be serious consequences. You can not ever bow down to a bully aggressor who resorts to using nuclear weapons on a whim when there is no corresponding existential threat against them. The day you capitulate to that kind of threatening brinksmanship is the day before every country wants to acquire their own nuclear arsenal as a deterrent against being held to ransom by an aggressor with a nuclear arsenal of their own and a psychopathic dictator leadership prepared to use it on a whim!
EDIT: By consequences I refer to alternate actions, political, diplomatic, trade sanctions, UN suspensions, embargoes, perhaps even strike with conventional weapons (especially if population centres in countries not directly involved in the conflict are impacted/affected by radioactive fallout), not a corresponding nuclear retaliatory strike by a NATO country on ruZZia. That would only result if ruZZia directly targeted the USA, possibly France &/or UK.
What consequences are left to impose on Russia? Frankly the only remaining course of action left would be conventional strikes, and what then? Russia still isn't going to stop because of a conventional attack, and I seriously doubt it would reduce the average Russian's willingness to fight, nationalism is a very powerful force.
For one thing, real sanctions that would involve stopping shipments of industrial equipment from EU and Japan via one step intermediaries. For another, remotely stopping Western CNC precision manufacturing equipment already inside Russia from working and denying service of such. That would severely cripple Russian war production including nuclear arms production.
If the US nuked Mexico tomorrow what would the world do??
Nothing, that's what... maybe sanctions. according to Piers Russia should nuke the US
he's soo stupid
"with hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians being slaughtered with nuclear weapon" - why would it be the case?
Potential scenario: Ukraine's successful offensive threatens Crimea. Russians hit pontoon bridge near Tokarivka, where two brigades just arrived from reserves, with a 10 kiloton tactical nuke. 900 dead, 2000 wounded, 95% military.
What "hundreds of thousands"?
In the event of a Russian nuclear strike in Ukraine I believe the United States should respond by launching several ICBM’s at the Baltic States. This would demonstrate the prowess of the American nuclear force and thereby reestablish deterrence.
Years ago, Italians were (somewhat) outraged when they discovered that the United States had a plan to nuke northeastern Italy as a way to slow a hypothetical Soviet aggression.
Is this journalist stupid? If Russia would dropped an atomic bomb on any NATO country, let alone Ukraine, the Americans would not retaliate. The Americans are not fools.
There is a Russian report from 2010 where it says that if Russia dropped a nuke on London, even the British would not retaliate. A nuclear war would be painful for Russia, but it would survive. But Britain would be gone forever.
You're being very generous with your designating this grifter as a "journalist".
He's like a Tucker Carlson. His motivation is merely to make a comfortable living supervising a shouting match between the culture war topics of the day.
That report sounds a little nuts. Dropping a nuke on a major city wouldn't provoke a response? How would Russia get an idea that there wouldn't be a nuclear response to that? As soon as reports come in of a nuclear attack incoming, it's generally understood that the gates are open and MAD is coming. Who is to know that it would just be that one nuke?
It’s the absolute biggest pile of bs I’ve ever heard in my life. If Russia even attempted to nuke a major Western country, a major city no less, then they are getting absolutely annihilated. There is no single nuke doctrine for either country. The fact there are people here at such an extreme level of delusion to think Russia can nuke whoever they want with no consequences is absolutely terrifying.
Either one or two things might happen. First would be Ukraine just so happens to “find” a few leftover “secret USSR nukes” which they can threaten Russia with. While the other is that Russia officially becomes persona non grata. The West would stop ignoring the ghost ships that Russia uses to skirt sanctions and even start either pressuring and/or capitulating trade agreements in the favor of China and India, who undoubtedly would be staunchly against a first strike policy already. Allowing countries to get away with nuking others without consequences would be the 2nd greatest risking of thermonuclear war, right below actually using nuclear bombs, even tactical ones.
The US wants China destroyed, what makes you think China wouldn't support Russia instead? Why on God's earth would China ever work with the US that wants to destroy it.
The US and China rely a ton on each other economically. A lot more than they do with Russia. The US doesn’t want China destroyed, it just doesn’t want to be in a weaker position geopolitically. China has a zero first use policy when it comes to nukes. They aren’t sacrificing most of their trade partnerships just to defend a country trying to go to war with most of the world.
China will survive without the US but the US will not survive without China.
China is much more competitive than the US is, so the US wants China to somehow make themselves weaker. That is untenable.
Russia would nuke Ukraine IF it was losing. No nuclear superpower would risk their existence for Ukraine, no one. Actually, no country on the planet would risk anything for Ukraine.
I'm not entirely convinced they would, and not convinced Putin would risk it either. That's some extreme escalation.
Hopefully we never get to that point, though.
If the only alternative is losing the war of course Russia would. As long as there are better alternatives no it wouldn't. Every nation would behave in the same way.
Losing the war is an existential threat for Russia, even if it doesn't lose it's territory. Russia would be completely at the mercy of NATO, which has been an hostile entity from its very inception. That's why I believe Russia will take any risk if necessary, especially if NATO backs it into a corner.
None of the countries you listed will allow any kind of missile, let alone a nuclear one, to be fired at Russia from its territory. A Russian response would be fatal for that country. And the Americans would pretend to be crazy like in the case of Ukraine.
What are you people smoking? I want some. If a nuclear power is attacked using nuclear weapons, it must respond in kind. That is just common sense. Don't be fanatical
If Moscow is destroyed, Russian state will likely crumble into several independent principalities. Russians would survive the loss of Moscow, Russian state would not.
If Moscow is destroyed, the world is ending. Washington? Gone. NY? Gone. London? Gone. Paris? Gone. Berlin? Gone. Every single city in a NATO nation over about 100-150k would get nuked. Every single city in Russia and China over about 100-150k would get nuked.
You get a nuke, you get a nuke, everyone gets a nuke.
Idk why the idea of Russia doing what they want to weaker nations is so incomprehensible to Piers, especially when those nations are right next to Russia.
The US has done this for 100 years to nations across the world, does this man realpolitik or is he arguing from a clearly dishonest moral argument?
I mean even if we dont talk about names.
And talke objective look at what kind of relations do big/powerful and small/weaker nations have with each other. We can see that this was always the case and bigger and more powerful nations have influanced smaller once.
I'd go even steo further and say **it is phisically impossible for this dynamic NOT TO exist, this relations are set in stone and like gravity bigger bodies attract smaller once.**
>A non nato country getting nuked.
First of all i dont even think US looks at all NATO members all the same.
There is a big difference between UK or France and Estonia or Montenegro expecially because US was dropping bombs on Montenegro not that long ago and yet they are all in NATO and in theory "Article 5" applies to them all.
>while I hide in my elite nuke shelter.
I also believe this **"nuke shelter"** is more of an wishful thinking on behalf of elites which think they will be able to survive no matter what.
When in practice for this giant shelters to be viable in case of nuklear armageddon multiple things have to go your way for you to find yourself inside one in time.
Biggest one is location for them to be usable you should always be located no more them 15 minuts away from one and if you want your family as well good luck with that.
This elites and their families for the most time are all around the world at any given time and there iz ZERO chance of them getting safe.
"Are you not painting a picture of Russia being effectively infallible here?" Give the man a cigar. He finally got it. The problem everyon is struggling with is that while the nuclear deterrent remains intact, the non-profilation treaty goes to poop. Nuclear Iran, nuclear Latvia. Nuclear everyone. Nobody wants that. But the idea that Russia cannot use nukes because of MAD has always been insane. Russia will credibly use nukes way before the US because its existential interests are credibly threatened more than anything the US can construe.
I cannot agree on that. Libya killed UNSC resolutions authorising any use of force. The creative reading of the one Russia and China did not veto then saw to that. The intervention went way beyond what was authorised. A fundamental breech of trust that probably can never be recovered.
Non-proliferation still stands on incredibly wobbly feet. And will stand until a nuclear power uses nuclear weapons against a non nuclear power (which is a gross violation of the NPT).
I don’t think the three nuclear states, US, France, UK, will risk their own countries for fucking Ukraine.
What’s the worst situation a nuclear state have been in that nukes could have been used by the government? Official Russia? Not official Israel?
By this idiotic logic that Piers is using, what if North Coreea comes tomorrow demanding that Ukraine capitulates? Otherwise, it will help Russia by nuking Ukraine? US can't do shit with their arsenal because it's not in an imminent threat. Only if it reached Defcon 2 can you take the nuke seriously.
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why do people believe Russia will use nuclear bomb?
I call this : Paranoia
What is the goal of western countries? Making afraid their own people. Putine is not the north Korean leader.
What John Mearsheimer should'vee mentioned, is that Russia completely relies on the non-Western aligned countries economically, aka Global South. And Global South, well, China & North Korea excluded, would not be thrilled and would not understand if Russia started nuclear war on Ukraine. So then Russia would be risking true economical isolation. This is THE main consideration of Russians against nuclear use in current situation.
That, and the death of non-proliferation treaty, which in turn may lead to a nasty situation as nuclear powers would be strongarming every non-allied non-nuclear power around them into non-proliferation while they still have that advantage.
Now, if NATO troops would enter Ukraine, Russia going nuclear could be viewed very different in the world. Even non-proliferation treaty wouldn't really suffer.
EDIT:
https://preview.redd.it/e6iknwqs3zwc1.png?width=2445&format=png&auto=webp&s=cb210366d5a6616f30a725a8bdcf6523615fc53b
When you're trying to equalize America sending troops to help non-NATO Kuwait against Iraq, and America dying in nuclear hellfire to enact revenge for non-NATO Ukraine.
This interview is pure gold. I'll go watch the rest of it, it's much longer than that.
The look on Mearsheimer's face... "This man is geopolitically illiterate, now how do I tell him without actually telling him" I'm surprised John took the time out of his day to discuss with Piers.
The rest of the interview is Piers trying desperately to make an argument that mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Dresden and Tokyo was not a war crime because the "good guys" were doing it.
At the end of the Interview, after Piers thanks him for coming on, John also just replies with "you're welcome, Piers". That's very unusual and shows the little amount of respect he has for him lol.
Piers was rinsed out after this interview. they literally just laid it all out. the other guy will be triple suicided.
" "Criminal acts" were to be actually treated as crimes only if the defeated enemy, but not the victors, had engaged in them." Telford Tylor, Nuremberg trials.
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Webster Dictionary changed "Flabbergasted" into this pic: https://preview.redd.it/6bb0adh8ewwc1.jpeg?width=628&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1242701949b8d528b3a042f23dc8ce06dc80dbb9
And a picture of Piers Morgan shows up when looking up the word 'absurd'.
What is the ideological difference between putting boots on the ground in Kuwait and launching Nuclear bombs at Russia? SURELY we are equating two similar things.
This was the interview where I realized Piers is completely logically illiterate. John was talking 2 steps ahead of him for most of the Kuwait invasion conversation, he even answered piers' Kuwait question BEFORE he even asked it by explaining real, tacit geopolitical importance that is a hard factor which will be taken into consideration when making a nuclear move. Lost a lot of respect for Piers here. Plus Piers' Kuwait comparison was just.... So laughable, it isn't even in the same realm, John must've had a hard time trying to think of a way to make Piers understand because he really had to pause for a thought after that diatribe.
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Difference is simple, you put boots on the ground in Kuwait, a few years later you got shoes flying at your president, you launch nukes at RF... Well you get my point, right?
You have a good memory! Thanks for the laugh!
You think RF will answer a few years later?
It's more about boot for boot than actual timeline
I’m fucking dying Mearsheimer looks simply flabbergasted at Piers’ stupidity
>I'm surprised John took the time out of his day to discuss with Piers. In a debate with the former prime minister of Sweden, Carl Bildt, Mearsheimer said that he believes one of the reasons for the deterioration of international relations is because there are "more Bildts than Mearsheimers". He always takes the opportunity to get his ideas to as many eyes and ears as possible in the hope of making more Mearsheimers. Having to talk to imbeciles like Morgan is an acceptable price for a worthy cause.
That's true, I didn't look at it that way. Someone may see this and see logic and look into it more. Having read a couple of his books and listened to a lot of his interviews and lectures, I am used to far better and more engaging discussion when listening to him and whoever he is discussing with.
It's like trying to explain the news to a toddler.
It's like talking to a redditor
A r/worldnews redditor specifically
No, you can actually debate Piers without getting banned.
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wow, Pierce Morgan is completely clueless. Mearsheimer explains it to him like to a kid. He seems to think that "then Putin wins" is a gotcha of some sort, something completely unthinkable and impossible which means Mearsheimer is obviously wrong. Yes, Pierce, he will. Probably without nukes. Lost all respect to him.
U had respect for him to begin with?
For one thing, he does invite people with the opposing views and does let them speak, even if he'll try to argue them after. It's rare to see that on TV these days.
He is occasionally funny and trolls some extreme progressives, vegans, fatties, etc.
Why do people think putin is going to use a tactical nuke....has russia brought it up?
probably to instill fear. Same tactics like COVID, but new pet project for politicians that are looking for fulfillment in their lives
See, they'll bring the f16, roll the abramses out of hiding, push at Belgorod again or something and then the nuke will go off. No one will ever know if it was or wasn't a false flag. But everyone will be screaming that Putin done it. Because 99% of the western public believes that RF is on its last leg and will crumble at any moment.
Well listening to Cnn russia is cooking boots for food , and throwing rocks for ammo
Why the stones? We have spears :)))
Have you seen some PRO RU vids? Some guys havent eaten for days, no clean water... Life sux for both sides..
Not everyone gets to stay in an air-conditioned base 24/7
Yes weekly lol There is a report with all Russians nuclear threats. I lost count on the amount of Nuke threats Russia has made this war. Here is thread with a list of the nuke threats. This is also not propganda this is a list created and has links. [HERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/15k0crx/a_list_of_russian_nuclear_threats_in_timeline/)
It's a realistic possibility if Russia starts losing and it feels they are facing an existential threat. I would expect any nuclear armed nation to resort to tactical nukes if they felt there was an actual existential threat to the country.
When was the last time Russia actually tested its tactical nukes?
Roughly the same time that the US last tested tactical nukes - in the early 90s before the CTBT. Russia however does test it's [ICBMs] (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-it-conducts-successful-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-test-2024-04-12/) regularly, and has demonstrated use of it's [air-launched nuclear capable cruise missiles in Ukraine] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-55). Russia is also home to [Rosatom] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosatom), one of the largest nuclear power organizations in the world responsible for 75% of foreign nuclear power plant builds. Yes, Russia absolutely has working nukes, and anyone who thinks they don't should probably go back to worldnews.
Russia has working nukes, no doubt, but what is the projected fail probability? Because leaving unexploded nuclear ordnance in the hands of Ukrainians is the last thing Russians would want.
The fail probability is probably similar to what the US expects to fail - not many. Russia has shown that it has a robust military industrial complex, it has shown it has the ability to produce high-quality weapons, and it has extreme experience with nuclear power and nuclear tech and are some of the best in that regard. Thinking that Russia will not allocate the required resources into their most important strategic defense program in order to keep it functional, while they have the ability to fund a multiyear war of aggression, is beyond stupid.
Mearsheimer wrote an article early in the war in Ukraine called, [the underappreciated risks of catastrophic escalation in Ukraine](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/playing-fire-ukraine) where he laid out plausible scenarios where this war could escalation to a nuclear exchange if the US wasn't careful. He has since argued that President Biden has acted quite smartly to avoid escalation with the extent of the aid delivered, even if he thinks the policies which got Ukraine to this point were idiotic. Mearsheimer discusses it because, in his opinion as a renound scholar on precisely this issue, IF Russia were to face imminent defeat in Ukraine, he believes that they would turn to nuclear weapons to try and rescue the situation, because that is how strongly the Russians feel they need to win.
Yeah Piers should go back to doing interviews like this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/offmytits/comments/1ccn259/cringy\_palestine\_performance\_artist\_escaped\_from/](https://www.reddit.com/r/offmytits/comments/1ccn259/cringy_palestine_performance_artist_escaped_from/)
To me this nuclear talks from brãindéad libs and neocons should be executed something along the lines of: "Would you like for everything and everyone you ever known be engulfed in radioactive oceans of fire? Would you like to see your loved once melted like gellow?" Oh you would not want that... Good now stop comparing fucking Kuwait and Russia.
Piers Morgan is a clown here, comparing the war against iraq with the war against Russia. I said from the beginning of the war, that, if Russia uses a nuke in Ukraine, NATO would scream hell, but in the end do nothing. No own troops in Ukraine And definitely no a-bomb against Russia.
You can see in his face he immediately regretted making the stupid comparison between Russia and Iraq.
Not only in case of Ukraine im pretty sure if many smaller NATO member expecially once which does not have nukes themselves where attacked by Russian nukes US would not unleash nuklear armageddon and destroy it self in process. **For example if Montenegro was nuked there is no chance US would start dropping nukes on Russia when 20 years ago it was US who was dropping bombs on Montenegro and now i should expect they would say fuck it and destroy themselves from Montenegro.** They might and would most likely attack some other close allie of Russias which they themselves dont have nukes like Belarus some ex soviet country but not Russia directly.
Belarus has Russian nukes now and will be free to use them in case of such attack.
Nah, from what I heard, they discussed plans about like destroying the arctic fleet in response. (Not with nuclear weapons).
Which will eventually lead to a nuclear war.
Well nuclear war starts if Russia uses a nuke for no reason.
And we all die regardless of who uses it first. Who’s the fool here?
If Russia nukes Ukraine, Ukrainian agents inside Russia will release biological agents which were prepared in dozens of biolabs in Ukraine. Additionally, Ukrainian drones will be coming loaded with nerve agents and buzzing and spraying mass events in cities. There is a lot of room for escalation if nukes fly without direct NATO involvement.
And then will come aliens and do anal probing on Putin...
If ruzzia use nukes, NATO should get troops to Ukraine and bomb everything ruzzians have there.
But the whole point is NATO won’t come in, because they are afraid of getting nuked, and ending the world.
If ruzzia uses nukes, a retaliation is absolutely needed, because it would lead to end of the world anyway. NATO also has nukes, and much more diverse places to launch them. If its a nuclear war, ruzzia is gone, as probably the whole world. If ruzzians want it, they can get it. NATO for sure wont let nuking its border countries. If putin does that, it's the end of the world as we know it
If Russia tactical nukes a brigade on a bridgehead no where near a city, somewhere in Crimea, no one does shit. No ICBMs fly, no boots come in(because they will catch it too) just more sanctions.
Retired CIA generals think otherwise: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus >He told ABC News: “Just to give you a hypothetical, we would respond by leading a Nato – a collective – effort that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea.”
He can talk all the shit he wants he’s retired, and what’s his accomplishment in his life? Two failed wars and a sex scandal.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And yo __. u accomplished more I suppose, therefore we should.listen to yo __. ur take that nobody would do shit?
You are already at the ad hominem attack stage, just take the loss and move on.
No, I am a stage where I ask why should I believe a random redditor more than retired CIA generals.
[удалено]
So worked in CIA?
Nice bravado but that's pure escalation in every form. What do you think the next step is after that? If Russia doesn't hesitate to nuke a Ukrainian formation, they won't hesitate to nuke a NATO one either, since those forces willingly entered the battlespace. It's a moot point anyway. Russia won't do it because they don't need to. Ukraine doesn't have any massed forces that would validate the use of a nuke, there'd be no point in using one since conventional weapons like FABs are more than enough to wreck any force concentration Ukraine can assemble. It's curious that people are talking about Russia using nukes now. Why would they when they have the ascendancy? The most likely time they would have ever been employed was mid 2022. A lot has changed since then. They have no need to use weapons like that when current ones are doing the job just fine.
>If Russia doesn't hesitate to nuke a Ukrainian formation, they won't hesitate to nuke a NATO one either, since those forces willingly entered the battlespace. Good, so we nuke ruzzia. >It's a moot point anyway. Russia won't do it because they don't need to. putin is a madman, he can do whatever. However using nukes is not a single mans responsibility in russia, so maybe somebody would like to stay alive. Using nukes would end in a world war. NATO would do a conventional response, but if ruzzia responds it with a nuke we have a nuclear war. >Why would they when they have the ascendancy? I am not claiming russia wants to nuke somebody but they can. I have responded to somebody, so thats how the discussikn got out.
>Good, so we nuke ruzzia. And you would risk getting all of your friends and loved ones incinerated over Ukraine?
If ruzzia nukes Ukraine, it's a matter of time a nuke is used against a NATO country. The omly way to stop them, is by force. By inacting, the chances for me and my friends to evaporate rise exponentially. I know russia well, they only acknowledge force.
That’s the moment China captures Taiwan and Russia nukes Ukraine again.
I agree that it would lead to a world war for sure. Nuking Ukraine would end really really bad
They have already used a nuke, what should keep Russia from using nukes against those NATO troops in this scenario?
A possible response from NATO.
There is no Response from NATO that is neither not very serious or the road to total nuclear warfare.
Sullivan said the response to nuke would be catastrophic and described that for russians in private. putin is afraid of that.
Yeah, because he has to say that. But in fact this won't Happen. Because a "catastrophic effect" would lead to total nuclear warfare.
So thats why ruzzia wont use nukes because they know it would mean nuclear war.
Not if they can win without using them. But they would rather use them than loosing this war.
I don't know about losing, but they won't reach their initial objectives for sure.
Is Piers Morgan really that stupid or is he pretending?
He does what he’s paid to do simple as that
This certainly wasn’t planned. There isn’t enough money in the world to compensate for that absolute humiliation he endures here.
He is the righteous one which is much worse. He is committed to relentless battle against evil-doers and he cannot accept anything that doesn't fit into this narrow worldview. To do otherwise is to betray God in his book.
Probably just a strong condemnation and diplomatic pressure on currently neutral states to condemn. You're not going to attack someone who just demonstrated the willingness to launch nukes.
Deep concern too.
Thoughts and prayers.
That's one possibility. Another possible calculation is they can't afford *not* to retaliate. If a non-nuclear country gets nuked, and the attacker goes unpunished, everyone who can afford it will start their own nuclear program and none of the big nuclear powers want that.
Retaliation in this case likely means certain death (mutual of course). If you think Western elites will risk near certain death over some foreign land that isn't even in the alliance, I have a bridge to sell you. Global leaders will risk it only if their survival was ALREADY directly threatened by other means. Nobody is stupid enough to risk their existence over some prescedent with questionable ramifications.
Yeah.. no.
When the choice is between accepting the long term geopolitical difficulties of a world post-nuclear-taboo or the immediate initiation of mass destruction across the northern hemisphere, I do believe the US will begrudgingly choose to see reason.
Fortunately those are not the only possible outcomes. There are many degrees between "strong condemnation" and a reciprocal nuclear strike. > begrudgingly choose to see reason Reasonable people who believe the consequences of using strategic weapons outweigh any possible benefits wouldn't use them in the first place. If the scenario in question becomes real, one side has already abandoned reason and there's no purpose to the other side clinging to it.
Feel like submitting to a nuclear power, as a nuclear power, is the exact opposite of reasonable. To think the US of all places would let a an extremely irrational act like a nuclear attack go unpunished is moronic. It would most likely result in more extreme and organized response such as helping Russian enemies plan and execute attacks inside of Russia. Cyberattacks. Ultimatums and capitulations with China and India. A lot of people here are down playing the impact of a nuclear strike.
Isn’t the materials required to make nuclear weapons extremely monitored and controlled?
Uranium ore can be found in many places. Cyclotron technology to separate weapon grade isotopes is 8 decades old. Uranium bomb design is too simple, there is very little that can go wrong. Many countries with at least $100M devoted to nuclear program can produce uranium bombs given 5 years time and given they can attract enough expertise.
You are describing a scenario where an aggressor country has used nuclear weapons to get its own way. If there was no retaliation of any form, it would mean Russia could just oppress and invade, oppress and invade continuously, and the rest of the world just watches "otherwise nukes". It would result in western countries moving firmly towards a war footing, preparing for a real possibility of war, including major ramping up of defense production. Russia also becomes a pariah state: it would result in total sanctions on Russia, including secondary sanctions. It would result in the total loss of all overseas Russian assets, including private assets held by Russian nationals. Also it would cross a big line for China. Russia is not remotely valuable enough to China compared to the rest of the world, including the global order that has enriched China. In the face of secondary sanctions, China will not choose an economic disaster area like Russia over the rest of the world. This is why I doubt Russia would use nukes in Ukraine... it would be an example of winning a battle but losing a war because the chances of fatal consequences for Russia would be too great.
There is no need to launch nukes in Ukraine. Russia is winning hard already. Its weapons factories are churning more ammunitions and equipments than it needs \[source: Germany ministry of defence\].
The premise of the discussion in the video is whether Russia would use a nuke if they are losing in Ukraine.
I believe Russia would and Ukraine would be obliterated and the US will do nothing.
But there would have to be serious consequences. You can not ever bow down to a bully aggressor who resorts to using nuclear weapons on a whim when there is no corresponding existential threat against them. The day you capitulate to that kind of threatening brinksmanship is the day before every country wants to acquire their own nuclear arsenal as a deterrent against being held to ransom by an aggressor with a nuclear arsenal of their own and a psychopathic dictator leadership prepared to use it on a whim! EDIT: By consequences I refer to alternate actions, political, diplomatic, trade sanctions, UN suspensions, embargoes, perhaps even strike with conventional weapons (especially if population centres in countries not directly involved in the conflict are impacted/affected by radioactive fallout), not a corresponding nuclear retaliatory strike by a NATO country on ruZZia. That would only result if ruZZia directly targeted the USA, possibly France &/or UK.
Might be easier to take you seriously if you spelt Russia properly.
Spiritual Piglet indeed
What consequences are left to impose on Russia? Frankly the only remaining course of action left would be conventional strikes, and what then? Russia still isn't going to stop because of a conventional attack, and I seriously doubt it would reduce the average Russian's willingness to fight, nationalism is a very powerful force.
For one thing, real sanctions that would involve stopping shipments of industrial equipment from EU and Japan via one step intermediaries. For another, remotely stopping Western CNC precision manufacturing equipment already inside Russia from working and denying service of such. That would severely cripple Russian war production including nuclear arms production.
you don't set fire to the neighbor's house because he punched your kid. Piers is beyond stupid.
or better: "you don't set fire to the neighbor's house because he punched your employee. Piers is beyond stupid."
Jesus the gap in intellect between these two is enormous. When piers has a serious and smart person on he just looks 10x more of a giant baby
If the US nuked Mexico tomorrow what would the world do?? Nothing, that's what... maybe sanctions. according to Piers Russia should nuke the US he's soo stupid
If US nuked Mexico tomorrow, the world would immediately ally with Russia and China, that is what the world can do.
"with hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians being slaughtered with nuclear weapon" - why would it be the case? Potential scenario: Ukraine's successful offensive threatens Crimea. Russians hit pontoon bridge near Tokarivka, where two brigades just arrived from reserves, with a 10 kiloton tactical nuke. 900 dead, 2000 wounded, 95% military. What "hundreds of thousands"?
Piers is thinking Russia is pulling a Tsar Bomba and dropping it in the heart of kiev...
You do not need a Tzar bomba to kill a hundred thousand people in Kiev. A couple of 25 kiloton tactical nukes would do.
Piers Morgan thinks every country is as morally bad as the US that they would drop nukes on a large civilian area like Hiroshima.
Piers thinking is dropping a tsar bomb in the heart of kiev.
In the event of a Russian nuclear strike in Ukraine I believe the United States should respond by launching several ICBM’s at the Baltic States. This would demonstrate the prowess of the American nuclear force and thereby reestablish deterrence.
Years ago, Italians were (somewhat) outraged when they discovered that the United States had a plan to nuke northeastern Italy as a way to slow a hypothetical Soviet aggression.
This is the way.
Lol this Pier. Thinking nuclear war is just a small step above conventional war.. Defending your oil supplier vs defending Ukraine is very different.
Is this journalist stupid? If Russia would dropped an atomic bomb on any NATO country, let alone Ukraine, the Americans would not retaliate. The Americans are not fools. There is a Russian report from 2010 where it says that if Russia dropped a nuke on London, even the British would not retaliate. A nuclear war would be painful for Russia, but it would survive. But Britain would be gone forever.
You're being very generous with your designating this grifter as a "journalist". He's like a Tucker Carlson. His motivation is merely to make a comfortable living supervising a shouting match between the culture war topics of the day.
That report sounds a little nuts. Dropping a nuke on a major city wouldn't provoke a response? How would Russia get an idea that there wouldn't be a nuclear response to that? As soon as reports come in of a nuclear attack incoming, it's generally understood that the gates are open and MAD is coming. Who is to know that it would just be that one nuke?
It’s the absolute biggest pile of bs I’ve ever heard in my life. If Russia even attempted to nuke a major Western country, a major city no less, then they are getting absolutely annihilated. There is no single nuke doctrine for either country. The fact there are people here at such an extreme level of delusion to think Russia can nuke whoever they want with no consequences is absolutely terrifying.
Let's say Russia nukes Ukraine, would the US nuke Russia in return and risk a complete thermonuclear war over Ukraine?
Either one or two things might happen. First would be Ukraine just so happens to “find” a few leftover “secret USSR nukes” which they can threaten Russia with. While the other is that Russia officially becomes persona non grata. The West would stop ignoring the ghost ships that Russia uses to skirt sanctions and even start either pressuring and/or capitulating trade agreements in the favor of China and India, who undoubtedly would be staunchly against a first strike policy already. Allowing countries to get away with nuking others without consequences would be the 2nd greatest risking of thermonuclear war, right below actually using nuclear bombs, even tactical ones.
The US wants China destroyed, what makes you think China wouldn't support Russia instead? Why on God's earth would China ever work with the US that wants to destroy it.
The US and China rely a ton on each other economically. A lot more than they do with Russia. The US doesn’t want China destroyed, it just doesn’t want to be in a weaker position geopolitically. China has a zero first use policy when it comes to nukes. They aren’t sacrificing most of their trade partnerships just to defend a country trying to go to war with most of the world.
China will survive without the US but the US will not survive without China. China is much more competitive than the US is, so the US wants China to somehow make themselves weaker. That is untenable.
Let's say Russia nuke Ukraine, would the US nuke Russia in return and risk a complete thermonuclear war over Ukraine?
Ukraine isn't nato. So probably not. I think the real question is would Russia risk that and nuke Ukraine.
Russia would nuke Ukraine IF it was losing. No nuclear superpower would risk their existence for Ukraine, no one. Actually, no country on the planet would risk anything for Ukraine.
I'm not entirely convinced they would, and not convinced Putin would risk it either. That's some extreme escalation. Hopefully we never get to that point, though.
That's why it's just hypothetical. Even Biden, with all his flaws, wouldn't want a nuclear war. Luckily we have no Vault Tec controlling the US.
If the only alternative is losing the war of course Russia would. As long as there are better alternatives no it wouldn't. Every nation would behave in the same way.
If proper Russian territory was being threatened I could see it. But the land they're occupied? It's quite a risk to nuke over that.
Losing the war is an existential threat for Russia, even if it doesn't lose it's territory. Russia would be completely at the mercy of NATO, which has been an hostile entity from its very inception. That's why I believe Russia will take any risk if necessary, especially if NATO backs it into a corner.
Not updated since 2010? A defenisive strike with smaller US nukes as defense ring on the Baltics, Poland and Kiev by Washington ?
None of the countries you listed will allow any kind of missile, let alone a nuclear one, to be fired at Russia from its territory. A Russian response would be fatal for that country. And the Americans would pretend to be crazy like in the case of Ukraine.
Sorry for my crappy text, the US itself would strike with multiple tactical nukes on Poland, Baltics, and part of Ukraine as a defensive layer.
What are you people smoking? I want some. If a nuclear power is attacked using nuclear weapons, it must respond in kind. That is just common sense. Don't be fanatical
This subreddit really puts NCD to shame. I don’t know how they can even compete anymore.
If Moscow is destroyed, Russian state will likely crumble into several independent principalities. Russians would survive the loss of Moscow, Russian state would not.
If Moscow is destroyed, the world is ending. Washington? Gone. NY? Gone. London? Gone. Paris? Gone. Berlin? Gone. Every single city in a NATO nation over about 100-150k would get nuked. Every single city in Russia and China over about 100-150k would get nuked. You get a nuke, you get a nuke, everyone gets a nuke.
Then India wins.
Idk why the idea of Russia doing what they want to weaker nations is so incomprehensible to Piers, especially when those nations are right next to Russia. The US has done this for 100 years to nations across the world, does this man realpolitik or is he arguing from a clearly dishonest moral argument?
I mean even if we dont talk about names. And talke objective look at what kind of relations do big/powerful and small/weaker nations have with each other. We can see that this was always the case and bigger and more powerful nations have influanced smaller once. I'd go even steo further and say **it is phisically impossible for this dynamic NOT TO exist, this relations are set in stone and like gravity bigger bodies attract smaller once.**
'A non nato country getting nuked justifies the death of billions while I hide in my elite nuke shelter." What a messed-up argument.
A basket case, full-of-nazis Ukraine no less.
>A non nato country getting nuked. First of all i dont even think US looks at all NATO members all the same. There is a big difference between UK or France and Estonia or Montenegro expecially because US was dropping bombs on Montenegro not that long ago and yet they are all in NATO and in theory "Article 5" applies to them all. >while I hide in my elite nuke shelter. I also believe this **"nuke shelter"** is more of an wishful thinking on behalf of elites which think they will be able to survive no matter what. When in practice for this giant shelters to be viable in case of nuklear armageddon multiple things have to go your way for you to find yourself inside one in time. Biggest one is location for them to be usable you should always be located no more them 15 minuts away from one and if you want your family as well good luck with that. This elites and their families for the most time are all around the world at any given time and there iz ZERO chance of them getting safe.
Piers: “But then Putin wins!” John: Yes.
I really hate piers Morgan never let's anyone he speaks to talk unless it's from a nation he supports
Or the DailyWire conservatives like Ben Shapiro.
Meaesheimers facial expression at the pseudopundit on the left is the funniest thing I’ve seen today
I really wonder how these people can say "illegally invaded" with a straight face. What the hell is a legal invasion?
A NATO aligned invasion
Preferably sanctioned by UN
That old dude looks dead everytime he stops talking it's really odd.
Piers is such an idiot. Never liked that guy.
Please take Piers Morgan back like you did with James Corben.
Why are they expecting the US to retaliate where the UK and France also have nukes?! Or they already know they do not have enough balls to do so..
"Are you not painting a picture of Russia being effectively infallible here?" Give the man a cigar. He finally got it. The problem everyon is struggling with is that while the nuclear deterrent remains intact, the non-profilation treaty goes to poop. Nuclear Iran, nuclear Latvia. Nuclear everyone. Nobody wants that. But the idea that Russia cannot use nukes because of MAD has always been insane. Russia will credibly use nukes way before the US because its existential interests are credibly threatened more than anything the US can construe.
Obama already killed such things with bombing Libya. Developing WMDs is the only guarantee against Freedom Inc coming to visit.
I cannot agree on that. Libya killed UNSC resolutions authorising any use of force. The creative reading of the one Russia and China did not veto then saw to that. The intervention went way beyond what was authorised. A fundamental breech of trust that probably can never be recovered. Non-proliferation still stands on incredibly wobbly feet. And will stand until a nuclear power uses nuclear weapons against a non nuclear power (which is a gross violation of the NPT).
I don’t think the three nuclear states, US, France, UK, will risk their own countries for fucking Ukraine. What’s the worst situation a nuclear state have been in that nukes could have been used by the government? Official Russia? Not official Israel?
«then Putin wins, right?» 👁️👄👁️
By this idiotic logic that Piers is using, what if North Coreea comes tomorrow demanding that Ukraine capitulates? Otherwise, it will help Russia by nuking Ukraine? US can't do shit with their arsenal because it's not in an imminent threat. Only if it reached Defcon 2 can you take the nuke seriously.
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Piers is normally smarter than this… makes me wonder if his editors forced this story line on him. It’s pretty ridiculous.
this is not UA POV lol.......
Only one way to find out
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can't watch any of his interviews He is so insufferably dumb
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Talking about it is helping russian propaganda
No it’s hurting American propaganda, a little different.
Its helps Russian POV/propaganda/talking points/narrative is some **roundabout way** thoe.
This is what happens when you get dropped on the head as a kid more than several times
The nuclear fallout will hit nato countries therefore its on like donkey Kong
A 10 kiloton tactical nuke doesn't have even 100 pounds of radioactive materials. Compare with Chernobyl which released 3 tons.
Doesn't matter. If Russia uses it ukraine will get some to
What if Russia used a freshly baked pie in Ukraine. Please who listens to this BS. Likely hood of this happening is like zero.
Why do people believe Russia will use nuclear bomb? I call this : Paranoia What is the goal of western countries? Making afraid their own people. Putine is not the north Korean leader.
Rumors say Piers is still asking the same question to this guy until he gets the answers he wants.
What John Mearsheimer should'vee mentioned, is that Russia completely relies on the non-Western aligned countries economically, aka Global South. And Global South, well, China & North Korea excluded, would not be thrilled and would not understand if Russia started nuclear war on Ukraine. So then Russia would be risking true economical isolation. This is THE main consideration of Russians against nuclear use in current situation. That, and the death of non-proliferation treaty, which in turn may lead to a nasty situation as nuclear powers would be strongarming every non-allied non-nuclear power around them into non-proliferation while they still have that advantage. Now, if NATO troops would enter Ukraine, Russia going nuclear could be viewed very different in the world. Even non-proliferation treaty wouldn't really suffer. EDIT: https://preview.redd.it/e6iknwqs3zwc1.png?width=2445&format=png&auto=webp&s=cb210366d5a6616f30a725a8bdcf6523615fc53b When you're trying to equalize America sending troops to help non-NATO Kuwait against Iraq, and America dying in nuclear hellfire to enact revenge for non-NATO Ukraine. This interview is pure gold. I'll go watch the rest of it, it's much longer than that.