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” - shortened version

I hope this helps some of the scared people we help,

• to have someone expert say clearly and concisely on TV that we are not about to have a nuclear war or a world war 🙂

what we’ve been saying all along.

Several military experts have said this including

• General Patreus, retired US four star general and former director of the CIA who also led forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and is in close contact with his counterparts in Ukraine frequently visiting them, and

• Admiral Radakin, who is in command of the UK armed forces and regularly visits Ukraine.

But the mainstream news rarely gives them airtime to say this.

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.

Longer version of this post with more details: 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”

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"

Here he echoes what Admiral Radakin said in a speech to Chatham House:

First, let me scotch some of the more sensationalist headlines of late.

We are not on the cusp of war with Russia.

We are not about to be invaded.

No one in the Ministry of Defence is talking about conscription in any traditional sense of the term.

Britain is safe.

We are safe because we are part of NATO, the world’s largest and strongest alliance and also because we are a responsible nuclear power.

…

Putin doesn’t want a conflict with Nato because Russia will lose. And lose quickly

Chief of the Defence Chatham House Security and Defence Conference 2024 keynote speech

This is a shortened version of my new blog post:

READ HERE: 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”

I’ve also made it into a tweet thread here:

. Thread by @DoomsdayDebunks on Thread Reader App

Also on BlueSky: @doomsdaydebunks.bsky.social

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.

.

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

https://uk.usembassy.gov/joint-statement-of-the-leaders-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 goes back to US president Ronald Reagen, first to state it really clearly.

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

We didn’t panic in the Cold War. We knew there was a risk and knew what to do.

Simple instructions like these would save millions of lives in a world war.

Our governments can't believe we are at any significant/realistic risk of a world war or we'd all know these precautions.

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

The sad thing is the clickbait is doing Putin's work. It led to strong pressure on Biden and Starmer to reverse their decision.

Only Putin benefits.

Sean Bell:

"if you don't do that [lift restrictions], Ukraine is trying to fight Russia with one arm tied behind its back"

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.

We can stop ALL FEARS of world war WITHOUT stopping the Ukraine war.

Deliberately silly and impossible example of Iceland invading Wales / Cornwall / Southern England.

This helps show why Ukraine's allies say Ukraine is the only country that can decide when to stop fighting.

.

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

Zelensky and Ukrainians know that if they had the military technology

🔹 any country in NATO would get access to on day 1

🔹even tiny Estonia

the war would be over in days, and Putin would have to retreat

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.

To show how much more powerful NATO is than Russia, the USA has the capability (WON'T DO THIS):

🔹 to sink Russia's entire Black Sea fleet from small conventional missiles fired from a sub in the Mediterranean.

🔹US could use the same Tomahawk cruise missiles as for Houthis.

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

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.

.

TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
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

Since 2022, Ukraine has asked 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.

The US won’t send them.

Any NATO country has access to those on day 1.

.

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

Every week Ukraine flies many slow propellor driven drones and sometimes even hobbyist ultralights for hours through Russian air space, traveling over 1000 km before setting fire to a fuel depot or oil refinery or blowing up a stockpile of bombs.

Russia can't keep them out.

s

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

Replace pilot and passenger by explosives and remote control and you have a drone that can evade the Russian air defences and head off and bomb a refinery deep in Russia.

I don’t think many in the West realize quite how politically 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

Second from left at bottom Ukrainian built Palyanitsa 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.

https://x.com/CovertShores/status/1858249895741739271

And page about them here: H I Sutton - Covert Shores

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.

Given how vulnerable Russia is to long range missiles, the situation on the battlefield is far more dynamic than it seems.

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”

1000 km circle centered on Kherson city.

There may be other surprise 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.

Biden has always said that Ukraine will win.

Nobody in the West knew that:

🔹 the Russian mine fields in 2023 were far too wide for the US mine field breaching equipment

🔹 Congress would hold up funding up in the fall of 2023, possibly just before a Ukrainian counteroffensive

Zelensky is confident Trump will help:

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 territory

Smaller 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

https://copilot.microsoft.com/images/create/a-tiny-confident-looking-midget-attacking-a-huge-s/1-65ec52ee8b294ea189b2c97a810a6f12?id=HT88ujpVqH44phwkvAmPng%3D%3D&view=detailv2&idpp=genimg&idpclose=1&thId=OIG1.GbUOWMWshWCNFilNDbZB&ineditshare=1

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_

As an example to show how weak Russia is, even compared to Ukraine without the Tomahawks, stealth fighter jets etc, Ukraine captured a small city in Russia called Sudzha to help protect their own border in early August.

More than 3 months later, Russia is nowhere near able to retake this city.

How big is it?

It has a little over 5,000 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

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

BLOG: Rebels liberated Syria from Assad's oppression — this reduces influence of Iran and Russia in the Middle East — OPPOSED to ISIS and Al Qaeda — true meaning of jihad in Islam is peace not war

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.

The text there is directly from his speech, - just reformatted as bullet-points and slightly rewritten to make it clearer, e.g. I repeated the word NATO in the first list of bullet points for clarity.

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. It would just defend itself. I go into that in that debunk.

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.

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:

7:50 … I don't think there is anything more conventionally that he can actually do, that he's not already doing.

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.

. Ukrainecast - Could the West cross Putin's new red line? - BBC Sounds

For the full transcript interleaved with the bullet point summary of each section see

. General Petraeus: Okay to let Ukraine use UK’s long-range stormshadow cruise missiles and US’s ATACMS to hit Russian soil - Putin will NOT attack any NATO country - NOT use nukes

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.

Kudos to Sean Bell and I hope we get more of this,.

Longer version of this blog post with much more information and sources

. 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”

Other recent blog posts on the same topic from this substack:

also

also

Also

Also

Also

Also

also

also

also

Also

also

For scared people: many things you may believe about the Ukraine war are EASILY SHOWN to be false or unsupported - example list of claims I fact check because nobody else seems to

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:

. doomsdaydebunks.bsky.social

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.

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:

. doomsdaydebunks.bsky.social

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.