Sky News' military analyst, Sean Bell to young kids: “we are NOT on the verge of World War 3” and “we are NOT about to have a nuclear confrontation”
- we need more of this, explained plainly and simply on TV and online
To get a quick first overview of this blog post, just look at the graphics and read the section titles. Hover your mouse over the left margin to see a table of contents.
This is the first news program I’ve seen that has just out and said a World War won't happen.
I hope this helps some of the scared people we help,
to have someone expert say this clearly and concisely on TV 🙂
what we’ve been saying all along
This is what we need more of:
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
We’re not on the verge of World War 3 says expert.
N.B. Sky News Australia is sensationalist and far right
Sky News UK is centrist and reasonably reliable.
The presenters also vary and as you see from this transcript Sean Bell responds to kids clearly, simply and responsibly.
Transcript of Sean Bell's answers to two of the kids' questions,
TRANSCRIPT:
Rosie: How likely is it that there will be a World War 3?
[USING SKY NEWS’ WRITTEN SUMMARIES of the questions]
"The short answer is we are not on the verge of World War 3.
I served on the military for 35 years. We were worried about the former Soviet Union and Russia. But actually Russia has struggled against Ukraine.
It's lost a load of tanks and fighter jets and frankly it's had a real mauling at the hands of Ukraine. And therefore it is very very unlikely that Russia will be in any fit state to attack anybody else any time soon.
Leo: President Putin has warned that Russia could use nuclear weapons. Do you think this would actually happen?:
"The short answer is we are not about to have a nuclear confrontation. Nuclear weapons are incredibly powerful. They've been around for decades now. They are the ultimate deterrent to stop anyone attacking you. They are not to be used in the offensive. There is no way Russia ever wants to start a nuclear war because there are no winners. I can assure you we are not on the brink of nuclear war"
It is obvious our governments and TV presenters KNOW a nuclear war can't happen or
they would be telling us all to prepare for fallout with the potential to save millions of lives
as for the Cold war, as when I was young.
But for some reason very few just straightforwardly say it won't happen like we do in our Doomsday Debunked group and as I do in this blog to help scared people.
Some other Sky News stories have been clickbait and we’ve had to fact-check them for scared people often. So it is just one presenter on one channel so far tha I know of.
But at least Sean Bell is doing it right. Also the format of answering kids questions is good.
For shorter version of this blog post see:
On his last point that there are no winners in a nuclear war:
Everyone agrees that a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought - not as a treaty - just agreeing on a self evident truth
All five permanent security council members signed a statement saying that a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought. Not as an agreement. As something they all recognize as true.
That's Russia, China, UK, US and France.
And that isn't a concession. It's not a promise or a treaty. It is just rational sense. This is something goes back to Reagen first to state it really clearly
.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
“We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”Uses the graphic from the US embacy in the UK: Joint Statement of the Five Nuclear-Weapon States on Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races
Here is the complete statement:
full text here
That is
not a concession.
not a promise or a treaty.
It is just
a statement of a self evident truth that all agree is true.
Putin could break a treaty or a concession. But he can’t change the truth of his situation that a nuclear war can’t be won and must never be fought.
This phrase goes back to Ronald Reagen in his State of the Union address of 1984.
Text on graphic: “nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”
Not a treaty or agreement or promise.
A statement of a self evident truth.
China, Russia, UK, France, USA, they all agree this is a self evident truth.
Graphic shows screenshot from video at 39:25
What president Reagen said, full quote:
A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?
In context:
We can now move with confidence to seize the opportunities for peace, and we will.
Tonight, I want to speak to the people of the Soviet Union, to tell them it's true that our governments have had serious differences, but our sons and daughters have never fought each other in war. And if we Americans have our way, they never will.
People of the Soviet Union, there is only one sane policy, for your country and mine, to preserve our civilization in this modern age: A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?
People of the Soviet, President Dwight Eisenhower, who fought by your side in World War II, said the essential struggle "is not merely man against man or nation against nation. It is man against war." Americans are people of peace. If your government wants peace, there will be peace.
We can come together in faith and friendship to build a safer and far better world for our children and our children's children. And the whole world will rejoice. That is my message to you.
. State of the Union Address: Ronald Reagan (January 25, 1984)
Starts about 35:20 into the video here
. January 25, 1984: State of the Union Address | Miller Center
Russia and China have repeated it since the Ukraine war. This is from Tass, Russian propaganda but it is a good source on what Russia itself has signed:
QUOTE STARTS
Russia and China are convinced that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be unleashed, according to the Joint Statement on Deepening the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership of Coordination for the New Era signed by Russian and Chinese Presidents, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, on Tuesday after their talks in Moscow.
"Stressing the importance of the joint statement by the leaders of the five countries, which possess nuclear weapons, on the prevention of a nuclear war and an arms race, the sides once again state that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and it must never be unleashed,"
. Russia, China convinced that nuclear war must never be unleashed — joint statement
How you can KNOW that our governments and our TV presenters do NOT think there is ANY realistic possibility of a nuclear war.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
You do NOT see these instructions on the news because there IS NO REAL WORLD WAR RISK
We were ALL sent this in the cold war.
NOBODY is sent it today.
Our governments do NOT assess ANY risk of a world war.
These instructions would save millions of lives in a nuclear war.
If you are outside the epicenter and stay away from the heavy dust that falls from the sky you don't get radiation sickness.
Radioactivity is mostly gone in 2 days, most of what's left in weeks.
When I was a child we all read this and knew what to do.
Now almost nobody knows except older people because we DON'T NEED TO KNOW.
Because there is NO LONGER ANY REAL RISK OF A NUCLEAR WAR.
It's bluffs, clickbait, sensationalism and exaggerations.
Graphic from: Protect and survive : this booklet tells you how to make your home and your family as safe as possible under nuclear attack
We didn’t panic in the Cold War. We knew there was a risk and we knew what to do. There is no reason to suppose people would panic today. So our governments are not keeping it secret to prevent panic.
The simple instructions in books like that would save millions of lives if there ever was a world war. It’s comparatively easy to protect against fallout if you know what to do, since you can see it. It’s the dust from the mushroom clouds, a heavy dust that falls from the sky much like rain but it’s dust. Only the places where this dust falls to the ground are impacted by the radioactivity. The lighter radioactive material in the clouds is just blown around in the wind high above in the sky and eventually adds to the very small background radioactivity that is there anyway.
If you survive the initial blast, you need to get indoors before the fallout falls from the sky. The radioactivity rapidly gets less intense. After a couple of days it is safe to leave your shelter for somewhere safer. Almost all of what is left is gone in months.
If you do this and follow some other simple basic instructions, you can eliminate just about all the risk of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims. Back then they didn’t know what to do.
And our civilization WOULD continue indeed almost all the world’s nearly 8 billion people would NOT be affected. Almost the entire southern hemisphere is a nuclear free zone. The rest of the world would come to the rescue.
If there was a real risk everyone would know these things.
It would feature prominently in all the news sites.
We’d have alerts interrupting the news and alerts on our mobile phones telling us what to do.
We’d get booklets through the door also as in the cold war, and so on.
We’d get all this well in advance too, giving us
advice on how to prepare shelters, and make contingency plans.
drills in how to respond much like earthquake drills in earthquake-prone places.
Our governments can't believe we are at any significant / realistic risk of a world ar or they would be telling us those things.
Same for TV presenters generals etc, all these people when they claim there is a possibility as some do they CAN'T be serious or it would be like in the cold war they would make sure we all know what to do to protect against fallout.
And then it is simply because it would NEVER make sense for ANY country to start a world war deliberately. Including Russia.
Western media clickbait is doing PUtin’s work for him - leading to strong pressure on Biden, Starmer and Macron to force Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind its back
The sad thing is also that the clickbait is doing Putin's work for him. All this media clickbait has led to strong pressure on Biden and Starmer to reverse their decision.
Only Putin benefits from that.
We need more people saying what Sean Bell said.
The other two questions Sean Bell answers are:
Zavier: The UK and the USA have allowed Ukraine to fire their long-range missiles over the Border, but does that now mean that the UK will have to enter the war
Sean Bell: There's a lot of confusion over the use of weapons in this conflict one has to remember that it's Russia that invaded Ukraine Russia has been attacking Ukraine's energy infrastructure its logistics hubs its railway stations its airfields using long-range weapons.
Ukraine has struggled to defend itself. The West, America and the UK particularly have been providing a lot of weapons to Ukraine to help them but for all sorts of reasons of sensitivity some of those weapons we were reluctant to let the Ukrainians use those against Russian territory.
That restriction has now been lifted because if you don't do that Ukraine is trying to fight Russia with one arm tied behind its back
I did this graphic to help understand how bizarre this restriction is:
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Putin's request to Biden to prohibit Ukraine from using its weapons to hit any targets outside Ukraine was always VERY BIZARRE
Singapore would NEVER buy ATACMS if it could only use them to hit targets in Singapore.
That the USA provides Singapore with ATACMS without this bizarre restriction does NOT make the USA a combatant in any war where Sinpaore might defend itself with ATACMS.
See my:
SECTION: Putin is just lying when he says the US and UK are fighting in Ukraine - they are just suppliers and are LESS involved if they put no restrictions on the weapons - example of US selling ATACMS to Singapore
Trump’s different approach to end the war quickly in terms favourable to Ukraine
Max: Is Donald Trump really going to stop the Russia Ukraine war in just 24 hours?
Sean Bell: Former president Trump has now been reelected in America he'll take the reins on the 20th of January and he's made lots of fairly wild claims about a lot of things including ending the war in Ukraine within 24 hours.
What's fascinating is the different approach he's seeking to take the current President Biden his approach is being that he doesn't want Ukraine to lose the war what that means is supporting Ukraine for as long as the war takes whereas when President Trump takes over his approach is very different he wants to bring the war to an end.
What does that mean it means negotiating and that almost certainly means that Ukraine will have to give up territory that's the downside.
The positive side that it will potentially bring the war to an end.
We'll have to wait and see.
So some more comments on Sean Bell’s
Ukraine wants the war to end - NOT a temporary and unsafe ceasefire
First many people I help want the war to end not for Ukraine’s sake but just as a way to stop the clickbait news. They have been scared of a nuclear war and world war.
But we do NOT need to force Ukraine to accept a ceasefire just as a way to stop the clickbait stories.
It would need to be an END to the war rather than a ceasefire.
A ceasefire only if it is part of a process of ENDING the conflict.
Ukraine also wants an end to ethnic cleansing and they won’t want Russia to blockade their grain corridor again
It would also need to be an end to the ethnic cleansing and suffering in occupied Ukraine, the kids being forcefully adopted away from their parents into Russian families to ensure they forget Ukrainian culture. That is a war crime. Also the torture that we know goes on of Ukrainians in occupied Ukraine.
Also Ukraine would be wary about letting Russia rebuild the naval base in Sevastopol because of the way it abused its military capabilities to blockade grain shipments from Ukraine, it could do that again if allowed to return its fleet to Crimea.
So it's complicated. There is far more to it than the Western media usually explains.
Ukraine may be less concerned about returning Crimea and East Donbas quickly if they can save thousands of lives in a negotiated settlement
But Ukraine would be less concerned about Crimea and Eastern Donbas. It would like to restore Crimea but that's less important than freeing the recently occupied cities like Mariupol, Tokmak etc.
So that is how Ukraine will be thinking, not just to end the bombing of civilians but also to help liberate their friends, family, relatives, and colleagues that are still in occupied Ukraine.
Ukraine knows it CAN liberate much more of occupied Ukraine - deliberately impossible example of Iceland taking over Wales, Cornwall, Devon and much of the southern coast of England
Their people in the occupied areas of Ukraine have suffered and are suffering greatly, their young kids forcefully adopted into Russian families and indoctrinated to forget their Ukrainian heritage, and many reports of torture.
And Ukaine liberated large areas already in 2022 and they think they can liberate many more areas.
For as long as they can do that they will continue to fight, unless they can find a way to liberate the occupied areas through negotiation. If they can force Putin to liberate those areas through negotiation of course they prefer that.
To take a deliberately silly and impossible example. Iceland is the one NATO member country without any standing army and is obviously NOT going to attack the UK. So this can’t scare anyone.
But suppose Iceland had taken over Wales and Cornwall and perhaps the south coast of UK, up to Dorset.
This graphic may help
.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Deliberately silly and impossible example:
Suppose tiny Iceland has taken over Wales, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and much of southern England through to East Anglia.
These modern day Vikings are torturing the people there and have forcefully adopted their kids to Iceland and forced them to speak Icelandic and forget their English heritage.
We might be forced to negotiate but we would WANT to liberate all of England and Wales.
US, UK and its allies all agree it’s for Ukraine to decide when to stop fighting and not us.
We can stop ALL FEARS of World War without stopping the Ukraine war.
The world is NOT safer if Putin gets to keep large parts of Ukraine in an unfair unsafe treaty.
Ukraine is the only country that decides when to stop fighting.
Journalists and fact-checkers can help by stopping or fact-checking the clickbait.
Putin can end the war at any time by leaving Ukraine.
Graphic: File:Viking landing.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
Graphic: File:HakonTheOldAndSkule-Flateyjarbok.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
Satellite imagery from Google Maps
And suppose it was torturing people here and they had forcefully removed kids from their families throughout those places and forced them to stop talking English and only talk Icelandic say
They forget about anything to do with their British heritage - small kids, 5 year old kids taken from their parents and brought up as Icelandic kids. And can no longer talk to their parents.
Well we might be forced to negotiate with Iceland and just agree they get to keep all the areas they have occupied.
But for sure we'd want to liberate Dorset, Devon, Cornwall and Wales
And if we had to settle for liberating all except Wales it would be better than not liberating any of it.
That is what it's like for the Ukrainians with the Russians. They respect Russian culture just like we respect Iceland culture. But if some fanatical Iceland leader was to try to restore the glory years of Viking times, well we would want to defend against them and try to liberate the territories they occupy.
So it is up to Ukraine when and how they stop fighting, as a sovereign country nobody else can stop them fighting if they are presented with an unfair and unsafe deal to sign - but if they are in a strong enough position they can negotiate instead of fight
So I hope that analogy helps to see the Ukrainian perspective. It is really up to them not us what they do and whether they feel they can negotiate and what they can negotiate away 8in any agreement.
Biden has always said that. The UK under its various leaders too. And so it is up to them because it's their own people that have bene occupied.
It is also up to them because nobody else can stop them fighting with whatever weapons and defensive systems they can access.
But I don't think Zelensky is one to claim he has a victory plan when he doesn't. So he WILL try with all he has available to not just stop the Russians advancing but to liberate as much as he can of occupied Ukraine. And if he can do it without fighting just by the display of strength so much the better.
So that's what's going on there.
See
I hope the war can end soon. But realistically there is NO WAY Ukraine will accept a ceasefire along current lines. Because they have a victory plan. A victory plan is very different from a ceasefire plan.
Victory for Ukraine is simply the ability to continue as a separate country and not get added to the Russian Federation
Remember Russia is attacking Ukrainian civilians. But Ukraine is NOT attacking Russian civilians. It is only attacking MILITARY targets. It minimizes harm to civilians.
Victory for Ukraine means that they get to stop Russia from dropping bombs on them and get Russia to withdraw from all or most of their country.
Losing for Russia just means it doesn't get to add Ukraine to the Russian Federation against the will of its people.
Zelensky is sure Ukraine can win in this sense, completely prevent Russia from adding some or all of Ukraine to the Russian Federation by forceful occupation.
They now have the ATACMS and are rapidly improving their own equivalents with longer range.
So - they could enter a negotiation from a position of strength - they are likely willing to cede Crimea if it saves thousands of lives. But they have a very different assessment of their position from their allies.
They have been forced to fight handcuffed essentially. They are asking for their allies to remove some of their handcuffs first.
Zelensky and Ukraine know that if they had the military technology tiny Estonia would get access to on day 1 the war would be over and Putin would have to retreat
They know that if they had the military technology that tiny Estonia would get on day 1 combined with their large army that the war would be over in a matter of a day or two - because Putin would lose so much so quickly, for instance his entire Black Sea fleet sunk in a few hours if he didn't withdraw from Ukraine.
In more detail:
We know how vulnerable the Black Sea fleet is - back to 2022 when Ukraine sunk the Moskva, the flagship of the fleet which also had the most advanced radar protection of the fleet. Ukraine sunk it with their home built Neptune cruise missile which has a range of around 300 km
TEXT ON GRAPHIC - A “no navy” country Ukraine sunk the flagship of the Russian fleet, the Moskva, in 2022 with two sea skimming Neptune drones. From then on Russia’s Black Sea Fleet was pretty much out of the war - they never ventured near the Ukrainian shores and then were forced out of Crimea as well in 2023.
Since then Russia has lost a third of its Black Sea fleet to Ukraine and has had ot move it out of range of the Neptune, ATACMS and stormshadow and so has had to remove it from Crimea because all of Crimea is now within range of Ukraine’s missiles.
But NOWHERE in the Black Sea is far enough to be out of the range of the Tomahawk cruise missiles even fired from the Mediterranean.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Range of the US tomahawk cruise missile with a half ton payload like the ATACMS, travels at nearly 1000 km / hour, range 2,400 km.
Proven ability to get through Russia's S-400 system
With the current state of Russian air defences, teh US could sink the entire Russian Black Sea fleet in a few hours but doesn't give this capability to ukraine.
Details of the missile here: Tomahawk (missile) - Wikipedia
Circle drawn with this free online map circle drawing tool Radius Around a Point on a Map
Also, the Tomahawk is just a fraction of the technology tiny Estonia would have on call at day 1 of any war.
Imagine how hard it would be to defend against supersonic potatoes? That is what the Russians would see in their radars if they were fighting a NATO country with F-35s
None of Russia's planes are anything like as stealthy.
.
When you look for one of these F-35s on radar …
This is what you see: [large potato]
Russian radar operator (imagined): “What is that on the radar? A supersonic potato?”
Billie Flyn, F-35 test pilot on what it would do in Ukraine.
It would go in and kill every surface-to-air missile threat that was out there, and neutralize all the threats on the ground, and achieve air dominance because it would kill all the air-to-air assets also. Remember: we see them, they don’t see us. It’s like playing football, when one team’s invisible, and the other team is not….
Background photos: rightmost potato from: Potato var. Linda HC1 and F-35 at Edwards
The 4th generation F-35 has a radar cross section of 0.005 square meters or about 7 cm by 7 cm, 2.8 inches by 2.8 inches similar to a large potato. It's like trying to detect supersonic potatoes in flight. The Mig-29 has a cross section of 3 square meters so about the size of a normal door. The F-16c is between the two, 1.2, smaller than a door.
Figures from here: Radar Cross Section (RCS)
Since 2022, Ukraine has been asking for the high altitude stealth Gray Eagle drone which can fly behind the front line and then deliver its “Hellfire” missiles from far too high for Russia to detect them.
But the US won’t send them. Again NATO would have those
.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Ukraine has asked for the high altitude stealth Grey Eagle drone since 2022.
this could drop small precise missiles from an undetectable high alitude of 25,000 feet (7,600 meters) and fly for up to 36 hours, range of 370 km.
Any NATO country has these available from day 1.
Photo: MQ-1C Warrior (2005-08-11)
Details from: General Atomics MQ-1C Gray Eagle
The USA are not likely to send Ukraine the veteran 1980s technology Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of over 2,400 kilometers and a payload like the ATACMS.
The US uses these against the Houthi rebels in Yemen for instance.
Any NATO country would have access to these on day 1 but Ukraine’s allies feel they are too powerful for Ukraine.
Russia seems unable even to stop modified microlight hobbyist aircraft loaded with explosives! This is about how Ukraine is using modified ultralights as long range attack drones. Ukraine appears to deploy modified A-22 ultralights as suicide UAVs
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Russia's air defences are so degraded that Ukraine is able to fly ultralights through them without getting shot down.
Replace pilot by explosives and remote control, and you have a drone that can evade the Russian air defences and bomb a Russian oil refinery 1000s of kilometres from Ukraine.
Yet Russia claims FALSELY it can "escalate" and win a war against not just Ukraine but NATO as well. Just bluffs and bulls**t.
Graphic shows the File:Huntair.pathfinder.arp.jpg
Video showing some of the drones attacking oil refineries Ukraine’s AI-enabled drones are trying to disrupt Russia’s energy industry. So far, it’s working | CNN Business Bear in mind that to do this it has flown slowly at about the speed of a fast car over Russia for many hours and not been shot down by air defences or even fighter jets.
If Ukraine had the Tomahawk, then given how vulnerable the Russian warships have been since it sunk the Moskkva, Ukraine could sink the Russian ships anywhere in the Black Sea.
Ukraine could say to Putin “Leave Ukraine now or we’ll sink your Black Sea Fleet”
At that point Putin would surely exit the war.
I don’t think many in the West realize quite how devastating it would be to Putin to lose his Black Sea fleet. This is why Ukraine sees the Tomahawk cruise missiles as a big lever it could use in negotiations with Putin.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is of huge national pride to the Russians. Ukraine has already sunk its flagship and a third of its ships with the ATACMS, stormshadows and its own native Neptune but most have retreated out of reach to the far side of the Black Sea.
If Ukaine had the Tomahawk cruise missile it could sink the entire fleet - gone from the Black Sea for the first time since it began in 1783
A major lever for negotiations with Russia from a position of strength.
Black Sea Fleet - just before the start of the Crimean war of 1853-6
Graphic: Ivan Aivazovsky. Black Sea Fleet in the Bay of Theodosia, Crimea, just before the Crimean War
And they are not being supplied that technology but their allies ARE prepared to help them develop a lot of technology rapidly themselves and they have the experience of making missiles from back in Soviet eras when they built all the ICBMS for the Soviet Union.
Ukraine MAY have the technology to sink the Black Sea Fleet by next summer.
We know that the Tomahawk’s were part of Zelensky’s secret victory plan because this was leaked from the Biden administration to the press.
That is the only thing that makes sense here.
TWEET STARTS
⚡️How to understand Tomahawk messages? This was confidential information between Ukraine and the White House, - Zelenskyi.
"It turns out that there is nothing confidential between the partners," the president said.
We don't know what Zelensky said secretly to Biden. But he might have said "Give us the Tomahawks and then when we negotiate with Putin we'll say "Withdraw from Ukraine or we'll sink the Black Sea fleet"
Ukraine already has many missiles longer distance from the 80 km GLMRS upwards.
There’s a graphic of many of them here:
https://x.com/CovertShores/status/1858249895741739271
And page about them here: H I Sutton - Covert Shores
You can see with the US flags:
the 300 km ATACMS at bottom left,
above it the 80 km GLMRS which is fired from the same launcher which Ukraine ALREADY has permission to use against targets in Russia.
The HARM in the middle also from the USA which they’ve been firing at radar systems in Russia that it uses to guide missiles against Ukraine, since 2022.
The HARM is dropped from an aircraft and homes in on radars in Russia. Range 25 to 148 km depending on how high it is dropped from. For some reason neither the USA nor Russia has ever raised any issues with Ukraine using HARM in this way AFAIK.
Then you see the famous Ukrainian built Neptune
The Neptune cruise missile dates back to 2022 and has a range of around 300 km and was first used against warships, famously sinking the flagship of the Black Sea the Moskva, but now also against land targets.
Then you see two more Ukrainian built missiles which of course have no restrictions and have been used already in the war.
Second from the left at the bottom you see the Ukrainian built Palyanitsa which is a jet powered cruise missile like the Stormshadow with a range of 700 km
to the right of it the OTRK Sapson also known as HRIM-2 which is a ballistic missile like the ATACMs with a range of 700 km.
Both have been used in the war but Ukraine has only small numbers so far. It’s built about 100, they don’t say how many of each.
But by summer next year it should have large numbers of them and the range should be much more than 700 km if the war is still continuing by then. They expect both of them to exceed 1000 km in range as they develop them further.
Both its long distance cruise missiles and ballistic missiles are fired from a “Shoot and scoot” platform like HiMARS making it impossible for Russia to target the launchers.
So Ukraine has many missiles of its own and supplied by others.
Text on graphic: Once Ukraine has its own 1,000 km ballistic missiles
Or if US gives Ukraine htre Tomahawks it uses against he Houthi in Yemen
It can says to Putin “Leave Ukraine or we’ll sink your Black Sea Fleet”
Here, Russia can’t bring any more ships in to the Black Sea because Turkey closed off the strait of Bosporous to any military traffic in or out during the war.
Turkey guarantees freedom of passage for all civilian and commercial vessels during peacetime.
Military ships can also pass through, under certain conditions, and only if advance warning is given.
According to Article 19, when there’s a war that doesn’t involve Turkey, warships from the warring states can’t use the straits — unless they’re returning to home bases in the Black Sea.
Turkey has the discretion to close the strait to warships of all nations party to a conflict. It may also do so if it fears an “imminent danger of war.”
Fact-check: Is the Turkish Navy blocking Russian ships from crossing the Bosphorus Strait?
Given how vulnerable Russia is to these long range missiles, the situation on the battlefield is far more dynamic than it seems.
For that reason I do think the war could end quickly - but no way it ends with a ceasefire along current lines.
If on the face of it it continues to remain stationary, beneath the hood, Ukraine will be rapidly building up its capability until it can shift it back in its favour.
It’s asymmetrical. Russia is ALREADY bombing all of Ukraine, but Ukraine has the ability to defend itself with Patriot and even from its IRBM the Oleshnik with THAAD or SM-3 systems from its allies.
For details of how Ukraine can defend itself from the Oleshnik, see:
Russia only fired a TEST IRBM - 6 INERT WARHEADS - damaged 5 civilian buildings and injured 2 people - a normal IRBM test fired at Ukraine instead of ranges in Russia - imprecise - no military value
But Ukraine does NOT yet have the ability to hit the Black Sea fleet throughout the Black sea.
It already can sink any of those ships if they come within 300 km and had forced the Black Sea fleet entirely out of Crimea and sunk a third of it already.
The rest of this fleet is very vulnerable. We see from the numerous Ukrainian strikes in this war that Russian air defences can’t protect them. Unlike the fighter jets, the warships can’t be flown out of range, just far too heavy to be lifted and removed from the Black Sea. Unlike command posts they can’t be hidden underground.
They can’t leave the Black Sea through the strait of Bosporus.
Once it develops that capability Ukraine will have a major lever / bargaining chip for negotiations with Putin. Similarly also if it is given that capability by the USA or its other allies.
So, it CAN end with Ukraine developing a sizeable advantage against Putin.
And then Zelensky could stop the hot stage of the fighting without even using that advantage, just by telling Putin about it.
And then negotiate from a position of strength to a more equitable solution.
There are likely many other levers Ukraine can have at its disposal but this is the simplest and easiest to see.
Though we don’t know what the top secret parts of Zelensky’s plan are, they may have elements like that as PART of likely many other elements to it not shared yet.
See also
Zelensky talking to Fox News - Crimea could be returned through negotiation after the war is over
Here is Zelensky talking to Fox News:
"President Vladimir Putin has been very clear Crimea will never return to Ukrainian hands. Are you willing to give up Crimea in pursuit of a peace deal to end this war and stop the bloodshed in Europe?"
Zelensky: "I was already mentioning that we are ready to bring Crimea back diplomatically. We cannot spend dozens of thousands of our people so that they perish for the sake of Crimea coming back.
And we can’t bring it back with the arms in our hands so we understand that Crimea can be brought back diplomatically."
[Zelensky’s reply slightly rewritten for fluency in English]
. Zelenskyy answers whether he's willing to cede Crimea, other territory in peace deal
Then, to complement with some details of what he says about Biden and about Trump.
First on Trump, if Trump is genuine it has to be about giving Ukraine what it needs to argue from a position of strength rather than weakness.
I talk about that here:
Biden has always had the aim to help Ukraine WIN not just stop it losing
Then on Biden, it's far more than helping make sure Ukraine can't lose. He has said many times in this war that Ukraine can win.
The reason he seems to many to be just aiming to stop Ukraine lose is because of MATTERS BEYOND HIS CONTROL
The main ones are
That the Russian defences Ukraine had to breach in 2023 were far more formidable than its allies realized because of things they couldn’t detect from spy satellites
The Ukraine bill was stopped in Congress in the USA at an unfortunate time when Ukraien might have been about to do a fall counteroffensive in 2023
People forget that in spring 2023 everyone was expecting Ukraine to do more counteroffensives and win back large areas of Southern Ukraine quickly.
Biden and leaders in Europe gave Ukraine what he thought was enough to win. The issues were.
In spring / summer 2023 when Ukraine tried to break through the Russian front lin they found
the mine fields were far wider than is usual and the Western mine field breaching equipment couldn't reach to the other side so that the equipment got stuck in the middle of the mine field, with Russia then dropping mines on the path back out behind them
Every tree line between the small Ukrainian fields had Russian soldiers in trenches waiting for the counteroffensive.
there were sensors along the entire front line that cold detect the tanks in minutes instead of the tens of minutes assumed in Western mine field breaching strategies
This was impossible to detect from aerial / spy satellites.
Even so after patiently working through the mine fields with small platoons of a dozen or so men, 10s of thousands of sorties, demining by hand, Ukraine got through the front line and the Dragon’s teeth at Verbove at the end of the summer.
Then the Nova Khakova dam flood washed away all the mines on the Russian side of the Dnipro river leaving that flank of the occupied area vulnerable.
So in 2023 Ukraine did have a chance.
The breacing of the Nova Khakova dam MIGHT have been done by Russia to prevent a Ukrainian counteroffensive across the Dnipro river. We will only know after the war is over if they reveal secret stories then.
Ukraine had two footholds across the Russian front line at Krynky on the Dnipro river near Oleshky sands and at Verbove north of Tokmak in the fall of 2023. Commentators were saying it was poised for a counteroffensive. But then the Ukraine bill got stuck in Congress - that wasn't Biden's fault.
It's possible that if the bill hadn't got stuck, if the US had got all that funding to Ukraine in fall 2023 that Ukraine would have managed a big counteroffensive and significantly changed the war. Surely funding by the US at that point could have had a major effect on the war.
As for 2024, by then the entire character of the war had changed again. It wasn’t just mine fields now. Also the drones. Tanks are no longer as useful as they were, because small first person view drones are hovering everywhere. Also a sneak attack through woods or rushes can’t work either, again the drones will see them in 2024 when they wouldn’t in 2022 or 2023.
By spring of 2024 the Russians had developed new capabilities especially the glide bombs and drones that mean that it is a very different battlefield again
when they got the Congress funding again there was a lot of catching up to do and they are still playing catchup to some extent today.
Yet Ukraine did manage to surprise the Russians in Kursk oblast, showing that even with all those drones, surprise is possible. They didn’t surprise the Russian soldiers at the front line in Kursk oblast but they surprised the generals at the top and Putin who took 2 months to react at all.
Other surprises may be possible. They may be in the top secret plans which Ukraine will NOT SHARE WITH ANYONE except those of the highest clearance.
So we can’t know those plans. If we knew, Russia would know.
After seeing Zelensky’s victory plan, Biden tweeted “Ukraine will win this war”
.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
President Biden: “Ukraine will win this war”
After seeing Zelensky’s detailed victory plan.
Zelensky, interviewed on Fox news:
“We took the plan with details and we gave this plan to Biden. We shared some ideas about it with Kamala and with Donald.”
So only Biden has seen the detailed p[lan.
Russia is far weaker than you’d think from the very static front line - losing large amounts of munitions, fuel, and with big problems supplying the front line.
It has several weaknesses along the front line that Ukraine might exploit in a surprise counteroffensive that it would NOT share publicly.
President Biden tweeted that Ukraine will win this war after seeing Zelensky’s victory plan and Zelensky replied:.
TWEET BY BIDEN AND REPLY BY ZELENSKY
President Biden @POTUS
Ukraine will win this war.
And the United States will continue to stand beside them every step of the way.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський @ZelenskyyUa Thank you, dear @POTUS Joe Biden, for your clear-eyed stance and for your historic support for Ukraine.
Ukraine will win this war with the strong backing of its allies. We are grateful to the United States, President Biden, both parties in Congress, and all Americans for taking the lead in supporting Ukraine and liberty. This vital assistance helps us to protect our people, our independence, and freedom.
We particularly appreciate President Biden's efforts to rally global solidarity with Ukraine. We are already preparing for the upcoming meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in Ramstein format.
We must win this war together, Ukraine, the United States, and the entire free world, and we will.
7:07 PM · Sep 29, 2024
. Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) on X
I go into more detail here:
So anyway though those were minor but important points that I thought needed clarifying in a longer blog post.
But the main thing is that it’s great to see a military analyst on TV telling kids the simple and clear message that we will NOT have a world war or nuclear war. .
The main thing is there is
🔹 NO RISK OF A WORLD WAR
🔹 NO RISK OF A NUCLEAR WAR
🔹 SAFE FOR ITS ALLIES TO HELP UKRAINE.
It's great to see someone on TV saying what we've been saying to scared people all along.
🔹We are SAFE
🔹We do NOT need to STOP governments supporting Ukraine.
Ukraine can still achieve a peaceful future AND stand up against Russia
I realize I need to say a bit more here as most readers won't know the background to what Sean Bell said about the mauling Russia's attacking forces have had from Ukraine.
Whatever happens we are SAFE in NATO.
Ukraine winning will also lead to a safer world for weaker countries.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: Why Ukraine’s victory plan is a path to peace not war
Slow Ukrainian drones 18th Step 2024
Nearly 30 kilotons of bombs destroyed saving thousands of lives
First ATACMS in Russia, 19th Nov. 2024. Blowing up bombs meant for Ukraine.
Russia is HUGE just wants to add one more region to its vast territorySmaller Ukraine defending from increasing rain of bombs.
Ukraine CAN win without taking ANYTHING from Russia.
All it wants is for Russia to leave and stop the bombing.
Small Ukraine defending from rain of bombs
Map combines Google Maps Toropets 56°30'00.0"N 31°43'15.0"E · 56.500000, 31.720833
Google Maps Karachev Karachev · Bryansk Oblast, Russia, 242500
Photos:
ATACMS Ukraine Battle Map (@ukraine_map) on X
Damage assessment photos from: Thread by @DefenceHQ on Thread Reader App
Google Maps Karachev Karachev · Bryansk Oblast, Russia, 242500
Toropets Assessment of Other Key GRAU Arsenals As Big as in Toropets Within Ukraine's Reach | Defense Express
Many people who worry about this new ATACMS permission don’t realize how much Russia is being mauled by Ukraine as Sean Bell put it in his answer to Rosie Bell:
TRANSCRIPT:
Rosie: How likely is it that there will be a World War 3?
[USING SKY NEWS’ WRITTEN SUMMARIES of the questions]
"The short answer is we are not on the verge of World War 3.
I served on the military for 35 years. We were worried about the former Soviet Union and Russia. But actually Russia has struggled against Ukraine.
It's lost a load of tanks and fighter jets and frankly it's had a real mauling at the hands of Ukraine. And therefore it is very very unlikely that Russia will be in any fit state to attack anybody else any time soon.
It’s lost 3,598 tanks as of writing this on Oryx, the open source page that documents every loss.
Since early 2024 it’s been setting fire to oil refineries, oil depots and now munitions dumps - which has to impact on Russia’s ability to attack Ukraine.
This is the map of attacked oil refineries as of April of this year
. Ukraine’s strikes against Russian oil refineries
After that it started blowing up fuel depots. The biggest fuel depot fire burnt for 16 days. You can't put out an oil or gasoline fire with water. On the first day they tried to put it out with water but it just made it worse.
Then after that it started blowing up Russia's stockpiles of bombs.
This is the Toropets explosion:
At 44 seconds in you hear the local Russian officials telling us that everything is under control while you hear the explosions in the background
TEXT ON GRAPHIC (at 44 seconds in)
You hear the sound of explosions going off as they speak.
“The air defence system of the Ministry of Defence did its job.
Most of 30 kilotons of explosives blew up
How Russia responds to setbacks in the war - tells everyone that nothing is happening.
Zelensky doesn't need soldiers he needs equipment. Ukraine with a million soldiers is still at only 2.5% of its population compared to nearly 25% for the UK in WW2
.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
NASA, huge and powerful but very timid
Russia knows it can't use nukes in reality
Russia tiny and weak, bluffs as meaningless as soap bubbles
Even the Soviet Union had no way to win a war with nukes
Imagine if your team was invisible - how easily you could win a game of football.
That is how much better NATO's F-35 jets are than anything Russia has.
300+ F-35s (USA), 100+ F-35s (Europe).
Russia's 5th generation fighter jet is not ready for war and may never be (expensive technology to develop).
NATO's technology is vastly superior (one of many ways)
NATO: Population 967 million [it's 631 million leaving out USA] NATO: 3.5 million soldiers
Russia: Population 144 million, 0.9% = 1.32 million soldiers
Ukraine: 37 million, 2.5% = 900,000 soldiers
UK war levels of conscription ~12%.
US defence spending $883.7 billion, 3% of GDP
NATO European allies $380 billion, 2% of GDP
Russia: $112 billion, 6% of GDP.
Ukraine: $43.23 billion, 22.1% of GDP
Based on this image created by Dall-E via Bing Chat
American football photo from: BFile:US Navy 090608-N-3283P-018 The Yokosuka Seahawks face off against the Yokohama Harbors during the U.S. Forces Japan-American Football league at Yokosuka Field.jpg - Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_090608-N-3283P-018_The_Yokosuka_Seahawks_face_off_against_the_Yokohama_Harbors_during_the_U.S._Forces_Japan-American_Football_league_at_Yokosuka_Field.jpg
Putin head from this graphic flipped Vladimir_Putin_
This is a simple example to show how weak Russia is. It
This is for Ukraine which has nothing like the capabilities NATO soldiers would have. Not nearly as well equipped, without enough support from the air, and without adequate airi defences.
In early August 2024, Ukraine captured a small city in Russia called Sudzha to help protect their own border.
More than 3 months later, Russia is nowhere near able to retake this city.
How big is it?
It has 6,000 people in peace time.
Russia what all its vast might can't liberate a small city of 6,000 that Ukraine has occupied for 3 months.
Text on graphic: Ukraine took Sudzha, population 6,000 in early August to protect its border. 3 months later Russia can't liberate it. Russia is NOT about to attack the far more powerful NATO.
Graphic shows Sudzha on google maps
Russia can't even spare 11,000 of their own soldiers to fight in Kursk. It had to get them from North Korea. And this is not enough.
Yet Ukraine is fighting metaphorically with one hand tied behind its back.
Any NATO country even tiny Estonia would have access on day 1 to
the near radar invisible F-35 figher jets
the Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of 2,400 km and
far more Patriot air defences than Ukraine has.
And much more and much more advanced gear than Ukraine has.
Also, if it attacked NATO it would be NATO that has vastly more equipment than Russia.
Here is a comparison graphic from the UK Ministry of Defence
As shared by Greg Stafford MP [can’t find the original on the MoD website]
There Russia’s one aircraft carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov has been out of service and in need of repairs since 2018, and as we saw, the NATO fighter jets are vastly superior technologically.
So now ask yourself - when Russia loses in Ukraine, will it decide to go and attack NATO?
Obviously not, it's bonkers. Putin won't think that even for a moment.
Instead this is how Russia responds when it loses - just lies and tells its people it won:
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
How Russia responds when it loses - just lies and tells the Russian people it won.
Reality is Russia risks losing its only sea port and airfield outside the former Soviet Union.
It risks losing them because it is so incredibly weak right now.
But will never say this to its people.
If Putin loses in Ukraine just means he doesn't get to add Ukraine to the Russian Federation - and will declare he won.
Expect similar message when Russia loses in Ukraine.
Screenshot from here Russia completed its mission in Syria some time ago — Kremlin
For background see
Admiral Radakin is in command of the UK armed forces and regularly visits Ukraine.
He also said Russia will NOT attack NATO
He can't attack us because we are too strong, out of his league.
By preparing in a strong way, we STOP Putin from attacking NATO.
Text: The biggest reason that Putin doesn’t want a conflict with NATO is because Russia will lose. And lose quickly.
For the detailed bullet points see my post here:
By lose quickly, Admiral Radakin means that if Russia ever attacked it would be
pushed right out of NATO territory,
any missile systems firing at NATO destroyed
NATO wouldn't try to defeat Russia as it is purely defensive
General Patreus: He [Putin] is certainly not going to attack a NATO country
General Patreus, retired four star general in the USA says the same:
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
General Petraeus as four star general in US army - now retired.
. GEN Petraeus Aug 2011 - Wikimedia Commons
General Petraeus says, first that Putin is bluffing:
Yes, Putin is bluffing.
His nukes threat is also a bluff - his biggest ally and partner China / president Xi said “don’t even think about that” and so did Prime Minister Modi of India, an important customer for crude oil etc
On what Putin can do by way of retaliation (nothing essentially)
Putin can’t do anything more conventionally than he is doing already
This is NOT a NATO decision it’s unilateral decisions by the US, UK and France and we do things all the time that are not to do with NATO
Putin will NOT attack NATO. His hands are more than full with Ukraine. He pulled forces out of Eastern Russia, Africa, and Syria to fight in Ukraine.
Putin doesn’t want to take on another fight
On prospects for peace - that the US needs to do everything it can to enable Ukraine to accumulate more battlefield successes to change the dynamics so that genuine peace negotiations can start.
This improves the prospect for peace
Right now the dynamics of the war are not going to encourage Putin to negotiate and Ukraine are not keen to negotiate either
The US needs to do everything it possibly can to help Ukraine to accumulate battlefield successes, so that the dynamics change sufficiently for meaningful negotiations
This time it’s a summary of what General Petraeus said in bullet points.
This time it’s a summary of what General Petraeus said in bullet points.
He was director of the CIA and led American and international forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.
On nukes he says:
7:10 Q. So General Patraeus when President Putin said that this will mean that NATO is directly participating in the conflict, that this is a red line for Russia, are you saying that you think he is bluffing?
A. I am. I think he has established innumerable red lines before. Ukrainians and or Western Countries have crossed just about all of them. He's even rattled the nuclear sabre. So much so that his own biggest ally and partner China, President Xi said "don't even think about that" as did Prime Minister Modi, an important customer in India for Russian crude oil, and so forth.
. Ukrainecast - Could the West cross Putin's new red line? - BBC Sounds
On NATO he says in full:
He is certainly not going to attack a NATO country and force NATO to invoke the article 5, an attack on one is an attack on all, clause. He doesn't want a fight with NATO.
. Ukrainecast - Could the West cross Putin's new red line? - BBC Sounds
In context:
7:10 Q. So General Patraeus when President Putin said that this will mean that NATO is directly participating in the conflict, that this is a red line for Russia, are you saying that you think he is bluffing?
A. I am.
7:50 … I don't think there is anything more conventionally that he can actually do, that he's not already doing.
Q. President Putin however has said that if this goes ahead this will be NATO countries being drawn into the conflict. General Patraeus, if there was a miscalculation, if this is a huge loss of civilian life for instance, how do those countries get around the fact that it will have been UK, French, US weaponry that was used.
A. First of all this is not a NATO decision. NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Council has not decided to conduct these transfers. These are bilateral decisions. Unilateral really decisions by the US and the UK.
Q. All by members of NATO Countries.
A. Yes but we do things all the time unilaterally or bilaterally with another country, in this case Ukraine without NATO approval or NATO involvement.
This is one of those examples, and
8:53: I don't see what Russia can do. He is certainly not going to attack a NATO country and force NATO to invoke the article 5, an attack on one is an attack on all, clause. He doesn't want a fight with NATO.
He has got more than his hands full. He is so heavily engaged in Ukraine right now.
You recall they pulled forces from the Eastern part of the Russian Federation, they pulled them out of Africa, they pulled them out of Syria, other locations. He doesn't want to take on another fight.
And then really bring NATO into this in a way that it has been cautious about being brought in before, which is why I think he has not done that in the past.
For the full transcript interleaved with the bullet point summary of each section see
Hope this has put your fears to rest
So I hope this helps put your fears to rest.
Once again there is
🔹 NO RISK OF A WORLD WAR
🔹 NO RISK OF A NUCLEAR WAR
🔹 IT IS SAFE FOR ITS ALLIES TO HELP UKRAINE.
Shorter blog post
For shorter version of this blog post see:
See also:
also
also
Also
Also
Also
Also
also
also
also
Also
.jpg){kind=link}
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL
If you need to talk to me about something it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.
You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages). Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.
SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS
You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.
CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
NEW SHORT DEBUNKS
I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.
See Latest short debunks for new short debunks
I also do tweets about them. I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:
Then on the Doomsday Debunked wiki, see my Short Debunks page which is a single page of all the earlier short debunks in one page.
I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.