Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

🇷🇺HOLD UP: Putin’s Nuclear Gambit: Tactical Strike on Empty Land to Terrorize the West into Surrender: CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s visit to Moscow, media speculation has intensified, with rumors ranging from a limited NATO test in the Baltic to a strike on England. My own assessment is that the...

World_At_War_6's profile picture

Global Strategy

112,360 subscribers

81,615 görüntüleme • 7 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

Bilim & TeknolojiHaberler & Politika
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Putin Could Potentially Execute Nuclear Strike On Ukraine, Warns Former Director Of The NCTC Joe Kent: "It's Not Out Of The Question That Putin Could Be Convinced That Now Is The Time To Do Something Drastic Like A Limited Nuclear Tactical Strike On Kiev!" PLUS, Joe Kent Gives His Expert Take On The Purpose Of CIA Director John Ratcliffe's Mission To Moscow
5:22

Putin Could Potentially Execute Nuclear Strike On Ukraine, Warns Former Director Of The NCTC Joe Kent: "It's Not Out Of The Question That Putin Could Be Convinced That Now Is The Time To Do Something Drastic Like A Limited Nuclear Tactical Strike On Kiev!" PLUS, Joe Kent Gives His Expert Take On The Purpose Of CIA Director John Ratcliffe's Mission To Moscow

Alex Jones

53,152 görüntüleme • 5 gün önce

🇷🇺☢️🇺🇦 Concern inside Russia’s own establishment over the possibility that Vladimir Putin could resort to a tactical nuclear weapon is reportedly growing, as the Kremlin searches for ways to change the trajectory of the war. According to Bloomberg, an increasing number of Russian officials and people familiar with discussions inside the Kremlin believe the possibility of Putin considering tactical nuclear use can no longer be completely dismissed. The concern reflects the enormous military and political stakes Moscow now faces in Ukraine and the growing uncertainty surrounding how far the Kremlin could escalate if conventional options fail to deliver its objectives. Russia’s key international partners are also deeply opposed to such a scenario. China and India have warned Moscow against nuclear escalation, with Beijing repeatedly communicating that Russia should not even consider employing nuclear weapons against Ukraine. China has continued publicly emphasizing its opposition to nuclear use and escalation. The political consequences for Moscow would be enormous. Crossing the nuclear threshold would risk destroying much of the diplomatic space Russia still retains with countries such as China and India, while radically escalating its confrontation with Ukraine and the West. That helps explain why pressure from Beijing and New Delhi matters: for Putin, nuclear escalation would not simply represent another military step, but potentially a fundamental rupture with partners Russia increasingly depends upon.
0:23

🇷🇺☢️🇺🇦 Concern inside Russia’s own establishment over the possibility that Vladimir Putin could resort to a tactical nuclear weapon is reportedly growing, as the Kremlin searches for ways to change the trajectory of the war. According to Bloomberg, an increasing number of Russian officials and people familiar with discussions inside the Kremlin believe the possibility of Putin considering tactical nuclear use can no longer be completely dismissed. The concern reflects the enormous military and political stakes Moscow now faces in Ukraine and the growing uncertainty surrounding how far the Kremlin could escalate if conventional options fail to deliver its objectives. Russia’s key international partners are also deeply opposed to such a scenario. China and India have warned Moscow against nuclear escalation, with Beijing repeatedly communicating that Russia should not even consider employing nuclear weapons against Ukraine. China has continued publicly emphasizing its opposition to nuclear use and escalation. The political consequences for Moscow would be enormous. Crossing the nuclear threshold would risk destroying much of the diplomatic space Russia still retains with countries such as China and India, while radically escalating its confrontation with Ukraine and the West. That helps explain why pressure from Beijing and New Delhi matters: for Putin, nuclear escalation would not simply represent another military step, but potentially a fundamental rupture with partners Russia increasingly depends upon.

NSTRIKE

56,879 görüntüleme • 7 gün önce

Putin said in September that he would consider using nuclear weapons in the event of an attack on Russian territory by Ukraine with the support of a nuclear state. Biden allowed Ukraine to use American weapons to strike inside Russia.
3:42

Putin said in September that he would consider using nuclear weapons in the event of an attack on Russian territory by Ukraine with the support of a nuclear state. Biden allowed Ukraine to use American weapons to strike inside Russia.

RadioGenoa

90,400 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🇺🇸🇪🇺🇷🇺 The man the West wants to break may be the one still holding Moscow back. Geopolitics analyst Brandon Weichert warns that NATO and Washington are misreading Russia badly: after years of casualties, drone strikes, and attacks inside Russian territory, many Russians are demanding escalation, not compromise. “It is a complete misread on the part of NATO and the United States into the Russian psyche.” He argues that every strike meant to weaken Moscow may be doing the opposite, hardening public resolve and making restraint look like weakness. That is the danger: the West keeps treating Putin as the ceiling of Russian escalation. He may be the brake. Brandon Weichert
1:14

🇺🇸🇪🇺🇷🇺 The man the West wants to break may be the one still holding Moscow back. Geopolitics analyst Brandon Weichert warns that NATO and Washington are misreading Russia badly: after years of casualties, drone strikes, and attacks inside Russian territory, many Russians are demanding escalation, not compromise. “It is a complete misread on the part of NATO and the United States into the Russian psyche.” He argues that every strike meant to weaken Moscow may be doing the opposite, hardening public resolve and making restraint look like weakness. That is the danger: the West keeps treating Putin as the ceiling of Russian escalation. He may be the brake. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

108,053 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

🚨 NUCLEAR ALERT — Russian state TV: “To stop Europe we will need to use nuclear weapons” Russian state television talk shows said a conventional war with Europe is not feasible and that nuclear weapons would be required. On Channel One’s “Vremya Pokazhet,” National Energy Security Fund director Konstantin Simonov reportedly said Europe outmatches Russia demographically, technologically and economically, adding: “We cannot wage a conventional war with it. To stop Europe we will need to use nuclear weapons.” Similar nuclear rhetoric circulated on Russia-1 alongside a United Kingdom map graphic. The timing comes amid CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s visit to Moscow and reports, citing sources close to the Kremlin, of renewed discussion of tactical nuclear options. Particularly notable: the same propaganda line on 24 February 2022 claimed Kyiv would fall in three days as the “SVO” began.
1:30

🚨 NUCLEAR ALERT — Russian state TV: “To stop Europe we will need to use nuclear weapons” Russian state television talk shows said a conventional war with Europe is not feasible and that nuclear weapons would be required. On Channel One’s “Vremya Pokazhet,” National Energy Security Fund director Konstantin Simonov reportedly said Europe outmatches Russia demographically, technologically and economically, adding: “We cannot wage a conventional war with it. To stop Europe we will need to use nuclear weapons.” Similar nuclear rhetoric circulated on Russia-1 alongside a United Kingdom map graphic. The timing comes amid CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s visit to Moscow and reports, citing sources close to the Kremlin, of renewed discussion of tactical nuclear options. Particularly notable: the same propaganda line on 24 February 2022 claimed Kyiv would fall in three days as the “SVO” began.

Intelligence FRONT

24,436 görüntüleme • 4 gün önce

BREAKING; EUROPE on high Alert: BELARUS and RUSSIA are Working on a Nuclear Warhead for the Polonez MRL Russia and Belarus have on going developments to allow nuclear weapon use from systems including the Polonez. Russian specialists are involved in creating compatible warheads, potentially compact tactical ones with yields similar to those for Iskander missiles (up to 50 kilotons). .The Polonez is a Belarusian 300mm MLRS (range up to 300 km, originally based on Chinese technology but later shifted toward Russian components), distinct from the nuclear-capable Iskander-M systems Russia has already deployed in Belarus with tactical nuclear warheads under Russian control. Making Polonez nuclear-capable would give Belarus a more independent delivery option, though warheads would likely remain Russian-controlled.
0:34

BREAKING; EUROPE on high Alert: BELARUS and RUSSIA are Working on a Nuclear Warhead for the Polonez MRL Russia and Belarus have on going developments to allow nuclear weapon use from systems including the Polonez. Russian specialists are involved in creating compatible warheads, potentially compact tactical ones with yields similar to those for Iskander missiles (up to 50 kilotons). .The Polonez is a Belarusian 300mm MLRS (range up to 300 km, originally based on Chinese technology but later shifted toward Russian components), distinct from the nuclear-capable Iskander-M systems Russia has already deployed in Belarus with tactical nuclear warheads under Russian control. Making Polonez nuclear-capable would give Belarus a more independent delivery option, though warheads would likely remain Russian-controlled.

Global Surveillance

34,430 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

‼️Former British diplomat A. Crooke‼️ “The West has now been placed in an all-or-nothing trap. A total game changer!” When it became clear that Russia was clearly winning the war in Ukraine, the West's tactic was to use escalation to force Russia into a corner to the extent that Russia would resort to nuclear tactical weapons. It was this all or nothing trap: either Russia gives in or we force it into (tactical) nuclear escalation. That would have really isolated Putin in the world. That is no longer possible. The tables have been turned. With a conventional weapon like the Oresjnek, the West only has the nuclear card left. The West has now been placed in an all-or-nothing trap. A total game changer! 👇
1:40

‼️Former British diplomat A. Crooke‼️ “The West has now been placed in an all-or-nothing trap. A total game changer!” When it became clear that Russia was clearly winning the war in Ukraine, the West's tactic was to use escalation to force Russia into a corner to the extent that Russia would resort to nuclear tactical weapons. It was this all or nothing trap: either Russia gives in or we force it into (tactical) nuclear escalation. That would have really isolated Putin in the world. That is no longer possible. The tables have been turned. With a conventional weapon like the Oresjnek, the West only has the nuclear card left. The West has now been placed in an all-or-nothing trap. A total game changer! 👇

Mark

60,415 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🇺🇸🇷🇺🇪🇺 BIG | CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s unexpected visit to Moscow may be carrying a much more serious message than it appears — a direct American warning to Russia against further escalation toward Europe and NATO. Influential American journalist Michael Weiss believes Ratcliffe’s visit could be connected to U.S. intelligence recently shared with Poland, the Baltic and Nordic states, particularly amid growing concerns over alleged GRU-linked sabotage operations and increased Russian drone activity across Europe. Weiss points to Germany, Bulgaria and Romania, arguing that a prisoner exchange alone would hardly require the CIA director himself to travel to Moscow. He also notes that Ratcliffe is considered one of the most pro-Ukrainian senior officials in the Trump administration and has played an important role in supporting Ukraine’s long-range strike capabilities. The historical parallel is difficult to ignore: in 2021, then-CIA Director William Burns traveled to Moscow to warn Putin’s government against invading Ukraine. If Weiss’s assessment is correct, Ratcliffe may now be delivering another direct warning from Washington — this time over the consequences of any Russian escalation against NATO and Europe. See the latest updates with us: Visioner
0:30

🇺🇸🇷🇺🇪🇺 BIG | CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s unexpected visit to Moscow may be carrying a much more serious message than it appears — a direct American warning to Russia against further escalation toward Europe and NATO. Influential American journalist Michael Weiss believes Ratcliffe’s visit could be connected to U.S. intelligence recently shared with Poland, the Baltic and Nordic states, particularly amid growing concerns over alleged GRU-linked sabotage operations and increased Russian drone activity across Europe. Weiss points to Germany, Bulgaria and Romania, arguing that a prisoner exchange alone would hardly require the CIA director himself to travel to Moscow. He also notes that Ratcliffe is considered one of the most pro-Ukrainian senior officials in the Trump administration and has played an important role in supporting Ukraine’s long-range strike capabilities. The historical parallel is difficult to ignore: in 2021, then-CIA Director William Burns traveled to Moscow to warn Putin’s government against invading Ukraine. If Weiss’s assessment is correct, Ratcliffe may now be delivering another direct warning from Washington — this time over the consequences of any Russian escalation against NATO and Europe. See the latest updates with us: Visioner

Visioner

57,181 görüntüleme • 8 gün önce

☢️ Russian state TV propagandist Vladimir Solovyov openly called for a tactical nuclear strike on Europe Solovyov — one of the Kremlin’s most aggressive media figures and a top Putin ally on Russian television — said Europe should “feel what war is like on their own miserable European skin.” He also claimed Russia should strike the “weak and pathetic scum” in Europe rather than the US. Solovyov is known for regularly threatening the West, NATO countries, and Ukraine with nuclear war live on state television.
0:30

☢️ Russian state TV propagandist Vladimir Solovyov openly called for a tactical nuclear strike on Europe Solovyov — one of the Kremlin’s most aggressive media figures and a top Putin ally on Russian television — said Europe should “feel what war is like on their own miserable European skin.” He also claimed Russia should strike the “weak and pathetic scum” in Europe rather than the US. Solovyov is known for regularly threatening the West, NATO countries, and Ukraine with nuclear war live on state television.

NEXTA

131,536 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

JUST IN: 🇷🇺🇺🇦🇺🇸🇬🇧 Putin’s nuclear threat is becoming a bigger concern A growing number of Russian officials reportedly believe Vladimir Putin could eventually consider tactical nuclear weapons as a last resort in Ukraine, according to reports, citing Kremlin insiders. This does not indicate that a nuclear strike is imminent. However, Western officials remain concerned that the war could reach a point where Russia considers crossing the nuclear threshold that has held since 1945. If that taboo were broken, the consequences could extend far beyond Ukraine, potentially reshaping European security and the global nuclear order. 👀 For now, the key question is whether deterrence can prevent the conflict from reaching that point.
0:32

JUST IN: 🇷🇺🇺🇦🇺🇸🇬🇧 Putin’s nuclear threat is becoming a bigger concern A growing number of Russian officials reportedly believe Vladimir Putin could eventually consider tactical nuclear weapons as a last resort in Ukraine, according to reports, citing Kremlin insiders. This does not indicate that a nuclear strike is imminent. However, Western officials remain concerned that the war could reach a point where Russia considers crossing the nuclear threshold that has held since 1945. If that taboo were broken, the consequences could extend far beyond Ukraine, potentially reshaping European security and the global nuclear order. 👀 For now, the key question is whether deterrence can prevent the conflict from reaching that point.

War Radar

62,550 görüntüleme • 7 gün önce

‼️‼️🇷🇺☢️⚠️ BIG | A senior Russian lawmaker has openly called for the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine, arguing that Moscow should stop debating the issue and instead force Kyiv into capitulation through overwhelming escalation. Alexei Zhuravlyov, first deputy chairman of the State Duma’s Defense Committee, said Russia should strike Ukraine harder and declared that tactical nuclear weapons must be used if the Kremlin considers them necessary. He dismissed public debate over whether such weapons should ever be employed, presenting nuclear escalation as a legitimate instrument for compelling surrender. Zhuravlyov also invoked the U.S. atomic bombings of Japan as part of his argument that extreme force can produce long-term political submission. The rhetoric is significant because it shows how openly nuclear coercion is being normalized among senior figures inside Russia’s political system. Even if such statements do not automatically translate into operational decisions, they reinforce Moscow’s broader strategy of using nuclear threats to intimidate Ukraine and pressure Western governments. The more conventional military gains remain slow and costly, the more Kremlin-aligned voices appear willing to present nuclear escalation as a substitute for battlefield success. See the latest updates with us: Visioner
0:30

‼️‼️🇷🇺☢️⚠️ BIG | A senior Russian lawmaker has openly called for the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine, arguing that Moscow should stop debating the issue and instead force Kyiv into capitulation through overwhelming escalation. Alexei Zhuravlyov, first deputy chairman of the State Duma’s Defense Committee, said Russia should strike Ukraine harder and declared that tactical nuclear weapons must be used if the Kremlin considers them necessary. He dismissed public debate over whether such weapons should ever be employed, presenting nuclear escalation as a legitimate instrument for compelling surrender. Zhuravlyov also invoked the U.S. atomic bombings of Japan as part of his argument that extreme force can produce long-term political submission. The rhetoric is significant because it shows how openly nuclear coercion is being normalized among senior figures inside Russia’s political system. Even if such statements do not automatically translate into operational decisions, they reinforce Moscow’s broader strategy of using nuclear threats to intimidate Ukraine and pressure Western governments. The more conventional military gains remain slow and costly, the more Kremlin-aligned voices appear willing to present nuclear escalation as a substitute for battlefield success. See the latest updates with us: Visioner

Visioner

30,695 görüntüleme • 3 gün önce

‼️‼️🇺🇸🇷🇺⚠️ BREAKING | CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s surprise visit to Moscow this week had a stark and highly sensitive purpose: to personally warn Russia against attacking any NATO member state. According to The Wall Street Journal, Ratcliffe’s mission followed new U.S. intelligence assessments indicating that Vladimir Putin could attempt to test NATO’s resolve with a limited attack against an allied country within the next several years. Potential scenarios assessed by U.S. intelligence range from hybrid and cyber operations to a limited conventional incursion. Separate intelligence has also detected Russian preparations connected to possible mobilization, including readiness planning in Kaliningrad, positioned directly between NATO members Poland and Lithuania. The fact that Washington sent the CIA director directly to Moscow makes the warning particularly significant. The United States is signaling that even a limited Russian attempt to probe NATO’s defenses would risk triggering a confrontation with the entire Alliance. Coming amid growing concern over the Baltic region and NATO’s eastern flank, Ratcliffe’s mission suggests Washington is treating the possibility of a future Russian test of Article 5 as a serious security scenario rather than a distant hypothetical. See the latest updates with us: Visioner
0:30

‼️‼️🇺🇸🇷🇺⚠️ BREAKING | CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s surprise visit to Moscow this week had a stark and highly sensitive purpose: to personally warn Russia against attacking any NATO member state. According to The Wall Street Journal, Ratcliffe’s mission followed new U.S. intelligence assessments indicating that Vladimir Putin could attempt to test NATO’s resolve with a limited attack against an allied country within the next several years. Potential scenarios assessed by U.S. intelligence range from hybrid and cyber operations to a limited conventional incursion. Separate intelligence has also detected Russian preparations connected to possible mobilization, including readiness planning in Kaliningrad, positioned directly between NATO members Poland and Lithuania. The fact that Washington sent the CIA director directly to Moscow makes the warning particularly significant. The United States is signaling that even a limited Russian attempt to probe NATO’s defenses would risk triggering a confrontation with the entire Alliance. Coming amid growing concern over the Baltic region and NATO’s eastern flank, Ratcliffe’s mission suggests Washington is treating the possibility of a future Russian test of Article 5 as a serious security scenario rather than a distant hypothetical. See the latest updates with us: Visioner

Visioner

33,349 görüntüleme • 7 gün önce

Belarus has become Russia’s nuclear staging ground. Belarus has not been annexed. But functionally, it has already become part of Russia. Lukashenko has long existed only with the Kremlin’s permission. When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Lukashenko officially appeared to be a bystander - yet missiles and columns of tanks moved through Belarusian territory. Russia used it as its own operational zone. In March 2023, Putin announced the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons. In December 2024, Russia and Belarus signed the Treaty on Security Guarantees that legalized permanent Russian bases and legally included Belarus in Russia’s nuclear strategy. Since mid-2025, around 2,000 Russian troops have been permanently stationed in Belarus, including air defense and aerospace units. In December 2025, the Oreshnik ballistic missile entered combat duty near Krychaw. In May 2026, large-scale joint nuclear exercises were held: 64,000 troops, 200 missile launchers, 73 surface ships, and 13 submarines. The nuclear sharing agreement marks a departure from Russia’s long-standing position, as Moscow spent decades criticizing NATO’s nuclear-sharing arrangements. Now it is reproducing the same model it once condemned. The 2024 nuclear doctrine explicitly equated a conventional attack on Belarus with an attack on Russia - automatically creating conditions for a nuclear response. Control over the warheads officially remains with Moscow. But Putin stated that Lukashenko himself would select targets for Oreshnik deployed in Belarus. In other words, the Belarusian president would bear public responsibility for missiles launched by Putin. Now to the arsenal and the numbers. As of March 2026, Russia possesses around 4,400 nuclear warheads in total, of which up to 2,000 are assigned to non-strategic tactical forces. Belarus hosts Iskander-M - the 465th missile brigade in Asipovichy. Range: up to 500 km. Accuracy: 5-7 meters. Nuclear warhead: 10-50 kilotons. Vilnius is just 340 km away. Flight time: 3-4 minutes. NATO would have virtually no warning time. Oreshnik belongs to another category. Speed exceeds 14,000 km/h. Up to six independent MIRV blocks, each capable of deploying up to six sub-warheads. Range exceeds 5,500 km. Interception by modern air defense systems is almost impossible. From Belarusian positions, Oreshnik can reach an airbase in Poland in 11 minutes and NATO headquarters in Brussels in 17 minutes. Berlin, Ramstein, and Warsaw all fall within range. According to Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence, only three missiles had been produced at the time of deployment. One was used against Dnipro in November 2024. One was destroyed in Kapustin Yar during a joint operation involving Ukraine’s Security Service, Defense Intelligence, and Foreign Intelligence Service. The Kremlin plans to produce up to six missiles per year. There is also Lida airbase - just 40 km from the Lithuanian border. Modified Su-25 aircraft are capable of carrying nuclear bombs. The most dangerous problem is neither range nor speed. It is the impossibility of identification. Until the moment of impact, it is impossible to determine whether Oreshnik carries a nuclear or conventional warhead. Every launch is an automatic nuclear alarm regardless of the actual payload. This ambiguity is a strategic weapon no less important than the warhead itself. Now to the likely scenarios. ◾️ The most likely scenario is not total nuclear war. It is a "demonstration strike": a single low-yield tactical strike against a peripheral military base - for example, an airfield in Poland or the Baltics. The goal is not destruction but testing Article 5. The Kremlin’s logic: "You will not launch a nuclear response over a single tactical strike." ◾️ The second scenario is an Oreshnik strike against a NATO logistics hub: Rzeszów, Ramstein, Warsaw. Most likely with conventional warheads. But this cannot be confirmed before impact. Even a conventional strike under the carrier’s nuclear ambiguity could freeze weapons transit to Ukraine. Shock and fear of escalation alone would be a sufficient outcome for the Kremlin. ◾️ The third scenario is a strike on a nuclear power plant with a conventional warhead. A radiological effect without the formal use of weapons of mass destruction. Maximum psychological pressure on Europe. ◾️ The fourth: a new ground offensive against Ukraine launched from Belarusian territory under nuclear blackmail. NATO freezes, Ukraine becomes isolated, and the frontline shrinks by 400 kilometers. Finally, let’s turn to the West’s response - or the absence of one. No symmetrical nuclear response followed. NATO did not deploy nuclear weapons in the Baltics or Poland. The response remained conventional: additional brigades and expanded air defense. New START expired in February 2026. No new treaty exists. Verification of nuclear arsenals is effectively absent. The United States abandoned the "voluntary compliance with limits" proposed by Russia. Patriot and THAAD were not designed to intercept targets at Mach 10 with maneuvering flight trajectories. Kyiv directly called Belarus’s transformation into a "nuclear outpost" near NATO borders an unprecedented challenge to the global security architecture and a dangerous precedent that de facto legitimizes nuclear proliferation among authoritarian regimes.
1:06

Belarus has become Russia’s nuclear staging ground. Belarus has not been annexed. But functionally, it has already become part of Russia. Lukashenko has long existed only with the Kremlin’s permission. When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Lukashenko officially appeared to be a bystander - yet missiles and columns of tanks moved through Belarusian territory. Russia used it as its own operational zone. In March 2023, Putin announced the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons. In December 2024, Russia and Belarus signed the Treaty on Security Guarantees that legalized permanent Russian bases and legally included Belarus in Russia’s nuclear strategy. Since mid-2025, around 2,000 Russian troops have been permanently stationed in Belarus, including air defense and aerospace units. In December 2025, the Oreshnik ballistic missile entered combat duty near Krychaw. In May 2026, large-scale joint nuclear exercises were held: 64,000 troops, 200 missile launchers, 73 surface ships, and 13 submarines. The nuclear sharing agreement marks a departure from Russia’s long-standing position, as Moscow spent decades criticizing NATO’s nuclear-sharing arrangements. Now it is reproducing the same model it once condemned. The 2024 nuclear doctrine explicitly equated a conventional attack on Belarus with an attack on Russia - automatically creating conditions for a nuclear response. Control over the warheads officially remains with Moscow. But Putin stated that Lukashenko himself would select targets for Oreshnik deployed in Belarus. In other words, the Belarusian president would bear public responsibility for missiles launched by Putin. Now to the arsenal and the numbers. As of March 2026, Russia possesses around 4,400 nuclear warheads in total, of which up to 2,000 are assigned to non-strategic tactical forces. Belarus hosts Iskander-M - the 465th missile brigade in Asipovichy. Range: up to 500 km. Accuracy: 5-7 meters. Nuclear warhead: 10-50 kilotons. Vilnius is just 340 km away. Flight time: 3-4 minutes. NATO would have virtually no warning time. Oreshnik belongs to another category. Speed exceeds 14,000 km/h. Up to six independent MIRV blocks, each capable of deploying up to six sub-warheads. Range exceeds 5,500 km. Interception by modern air defense systems is almost impossible. From Belarusian positions, Oreshnik can reach an airbase in Poland in 11 minutes and NATO headquarters in Brussels in 17 minutes. Berlin, Ramstein, and Warsaw all fall within range. According to Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence, only three missiles had been produced at the time of deployment. One was used against Dnipro in November 2024. One was destroyed in Kapustin Yar during a joint operation involving Ukraine’s Security Service, Defense Intelligence, and Foreign Intelligence Service. The Kremlin plans to produce up to six missiles per year. There is also Lida airbase - just 40 km from the Lithuanian border. Modified Su-25 aircraft are capable of carrying nuclear bombs. The most dangerous problem is neither range nor speed. It is the impossibility of identification. Until the moment of impact, it is impossible to determine whether Oreshnik carries a nuclear or conventional warhead. Every launch is an automatic nuclear alarm regardless of the actual payload. This ambiguity is a strategic weapon no less important than the warhead itself. Now to the likely scenarios. ◾️ The most likely scenario is not total nuclear war. It is a "demonstration strike": a single low-yield tactical strike against a peripheral military base - for example, an airfield in Poland or the Baltics. The goal is not destruction but testing Article 5. The Kremlin’s logic: "You will not launch a nuclear response over a single tactical strike." ◾️ The second scenario is an Oreshnik strike against a NATO logistics hub: Rzeszów, Ramstein, Warsaw. Most likely with conventional warheads. But this cannot be confirmed before impact. Even a conventional strike under the carrier’s nuclear ambiguity could freeze weapons transit to Ukraine. Shock and fear of escalation alone would be a sufficient outcome for the Kremlin. ◾️ The third scenario is a strike on a nuclear power plant with a conventional warhead. A radiological effect without the formal use of weapons of mass destruction. Maximum psychological pressure on Europe. ◾️ The fourth: a new ground offensive against Ukraine launched from Belarusian territory under nuclear blackmail. NATO freezes, Ukraine becomes isolated, and the frontline shrinks by 400 kilometers. Finally, let’s turn to the West’s response - or the absence of one. No symmetrical nuclear response followed. NATO did not deploy nuclear weapons in the Baltics or Poland. The response remained conventional: additional brigades and expanded air defense. New START expired in February 2026. No new treaty exists. Verification of nuclear arsenals is effectively absent. The United States abandoned the "voluntary compliance with limits" proposed by Russia. Patriot and THAAD were not designed to intercept targets at Mach 10 with maneuvering flight trajectories. Kyiv directly called Belarus’s transformation into a "nuclear outpost" near NATO borders an unprecedented challenge to the global security architecture and a dangerous precedent that de facto legitimizes nuclear proliferation among authoritarian regimes.

Anton Gerashchenko

59,276 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

🚨NUCLEAR EXTINCTION: PUTIN HAS THREATENED ANNIHILATION IF A NUCLEAR STRIKE IS DETECTED Putin's recent statements on nuclear capabilities should be alarming to EVERYONE. He threatened ‘enemies’ with total nuclear annihilation, leaving 'no chance of survival' Putin emphasized that once Nuclear missile launches are detected, a massive retaliatory strike of HUNDREDS of Russian Nuclear missiles will be unleashed from various directions, ensuring that ‘no single enemy survives.’ In other words, any Nuclear strike from any NATO member could mean a simultaneous and total nuclear strike against all NATO nuclear powers, including the U.S. It's important to note that NATO has never threatened a first strike on Moscow. Recent reports suggested suspicions of a new test in the Arctic involving the Burevestnik, a super powerful missile with an onboard nuclear reactor. Putin also bragged about the successful testing of the 'Sarmat' or 'Satan-2,' an unstoppable ICBM that travels at 15,880 mph and is the size of a 14-storey tower block. He vowed to move towards mass production and combat duty deployment soon. When asked about resuming nuclear weapons testing, Putin remained non-committal, suggesting Russia could potentially revoke ratification of the international nuclear test ban treaty. MY THOUGHTS: The Ukraine war is complex. Russia is at fault, and denying this is ridiculous. This does NOT mean NATO is also not at fault, and it does not mean one cannot criticize the West for not doing enough to END the war. Voters, the media, and lawmakers, need to take steps in DE-ESCALATING this war rather than criticizing those who do so. I don’t want to sound alarming, but if this war gets out of control, the world is at risk of more destruction than both World Wars combined. Although slim, this is the closest we've been to such a position since the Cold War. Russia is known to bluff, and people like to compare this to the ‘Boy That Cried Wolf’. What those people forget is that eventually, the boy cried wolf and the wolf was actually there, killing the boy. This is a risk the world CANNOT AFFORD.
0:37

🚨NUCLEAR EXTINCTION: PUTIN HAS THREATENED ANNIHILATION IF A NUCLEAR STRIKE IS DETECTED Putin's recent statements on nuclear capabilities should be alarming to EVERYONE. He threatened ‘enemies’ with total nuclear annihilation, leaving 'no chance of survival' Putin emphasized that once Nuclear missile launches are detected, a massive retaliatory strike of HUNDREDS of Russian Nuclear missiles will be unleashed from various directions, ensuring that ‘no single enemy survives.’ In other words, any Nuclear strike from any NATO member could mean a simultaneous and total nuclear strike against all NATO nuclear powers, including the U.S. It's important to note that NATO has never threatened a first strike on Moscow. Recent reports suggested suspicions of a new test in the Arctic involving the Burevestnik, a super powerful missile with an onboard nuclear reactor. Putin also bragged about the successful testing of the 'Sarmat' or 'Satan-2,' an unstoppable ICBM that travels at 15,880 mph and is the size of a 14-storey tower block. He vowed to move towards mass production and combat duty deployment soon. When asked about resuming nuclear weapons testing, Putin remained non-committal, suggesting Russia could potentially revoke ratification of the international nuclear test ban treaty. MY THOUGHTS: The Ukraine war is complex. Russia is at fault, and denying this is ridiculous. This does NOT mean NATO is also not at fault, and it does not mean one cannot criticize the West for not doing enough to END the war. Voters, the media, and lawmakers, need to take steps in DE-ESCALATING this war rather than criticizing those who do so. I don’t want to sound alarming, but if this war gets out of control, the world is at risk of more destruction than both World Wars combined. Although slim, this is the closest we've been to such a position since the Cold War. Russia is known to bluff, and people like to compare this to the ‘Boy That Cried Wolf’. What those people forget is that eventually, the boy cried wolf and the wolf was actually there, killing the boy. This is a risk the world CANNOT AFFORD.

Mario Nawfal

6,904,638 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Russia demonstrates its nuclear weapons in Belarus The Russian Ministry of Defense has released video footage showing the delivery of nuclear warheads to field sites of a missile brigade in Belarus during ongoing nuclear drills. Moscow states that Russian nuclear weapons have now been deployed on Belarusian territory. The exercises involve over 64,000 troops and more than 7,800 pieces of military equipment, including around 200 missile launchers. Russia currently has 320 launchers in total.
0:51

Russia demonstrates its nuclear weapons in Belarus The Russian Ministry of Defense has released video footage showing the delivery of nuclear warheads to field sites of a missile brigade in Belarus during ongoing nuclear drills. Moscow states that Russian nuclear weapons have now been deployed on Belarusian territory. The exercises involve over 64,000 troops and more than 7,800 pieces of military equipment, including around 200 missile launchers. Russia currently has 320 launchers in total.

Visegrád 24

38,632 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

‼️‼️🇷🇺☢️ BREAKING | Russian state television is once again normalizing nuclear blackmail, with propagandists openly discussing demonstrative nuclear use and even the possibility of escalating to a real strike against the United Kingdom if the West refuses to back down. During the discussion, one speaker argued that Russia should conduct an actual nuclear test to force the world to witness a visible demonstration of Kremlin power, while another went further and advocated demonstrative nuclear strikes as a means of coercion. The rhetoric then escalated to the suggestion that, if the West failed to respond, Russia should consider a direct nuclear attack on British territory. Expert Konstantin Simonov added that Russia would struggle in a conventional war against Europe because of its demographic, technological and economic disadvantages, and argued that nuclear coercion therefore remains Moscow’s most powerful instrument for forcing European states to disengage from the war. The significance is less about whether such threats are operational policy and more about how openly nuclear escalation is being mainstreamed inside Russia’s state-controlled information space. The message is designed to compensate for conventional weakness by convincing European societies that continued support for Ukraine carries unacceptable risk. In practice, this is nuclear intimidation as strategic messaging: if Moscow cannot dominate Europe conventionally, it wants fear of escalation to do the work instead. See the latest updates with us: Visioner
0:30

‼️‼️🇷🇺☢️ BREAKING | Russian state television is once again normalizing nuclear blackmail, with propagandists openly discussing demonstrative nuclear use and even the possibility of escalating to a real strike against the United Kingdom if the West refuses to back down. During the discussion, one speaker argued that Russia should conduct an actual nuclear test to force the world to witness a visible demonstration of Kremlin power, while another went further and advocated demonstrative nuclear strikes as a means of coercion. The rhetoric then escalated to the suggestion that, if the West failed to respond, Russia should consider a direct nuclear attack on British territory. Expert Konstantin Simonov added that Russia would struggle in a conventional war against Europe because of its demographic, technological and economic disadvantages, and argued that nuclear coercion therefore remains Moscow’s most powerful instrument for forcing European states to disengage from the war. The significance is less about whether such threats are operational policy and more about how openly nuclear escalation is being mainstreamed inside Russia’s state-controlled information space. The message is designed to compensate for conventional weakness by convincing European societies that continued support for Ukraine carries unacceptable risk. In practice, this is nuclear intimidation as strategic messaging: if Moscow cannot dominate Europe conventionally, it wants fear of escalation to do the work instead. See the latest updates with us: Visioner

Visioner

20,292 görüntüleme • 3 gün önce

🚨🇮🇱 🇮🇷THE NUCLEAR THRESHOLD: ISRAEL’S UNILATERAL CAPABILITY Col. Larry Wilkerson argues that Israel is now powerful and willing enough to make nuclear decisions without seeking U.S. permission. A single tactical strike would not be enough; because of Iran's vast size, Israel would likely employ multiple weapons to force an end to the conflict. The stigma of nuclear use is fading as regional escalations push the parties toward unfathomable outcomes.
10:09

🚨🇮🇱 🇮🇷THE NUCLEAR THRESHOLD: ISRAEL’S UNILATERAL CAPABILITY Col. Larry Wilkerson argues that Israel is now powerful and willing enough to make nuclear decisions without seeking U.S. permission. A single tactical strike would not be enough; because of Iran's vast size, Israel would likely employ multiple weapons to force an end to the conflict. The stigma of nuclear use is fading as regional escalations push the parties toward unfathomable outcomes.

Mario Nawfal

61,313 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce