Why Trump's secondary sanctions on Russian fossil fuel exports can lead to possible PEACE in Ukraine - if they work - if they don't the war just continues
Trump has been doing everything he can to make a ceasefire / peace treaty a sweet deal for Putin. It’s failed. Putin typically synchronizes his biggest attacks on Ukrainian civilians (which is a war crime) with the peace negotiations and with his peace talks with Trump.
After months of this Trump has concluded as Europe did long ago that Putin does not sincerely want a peaceful end to this war, even though he sounds very sincere when talking to Trump one to one in the phone calls.
This is similar to when Putin sounded very sincere to Macron for weeks of negotiation and then broke all his promises and invaded Ukraine in 2022. Later on the West found out through secret intelligence that he probably made the decision to invade Ukraine in 2020 and at the latest before the exercises in spring 2021. All the apparent sincerity from before the 2021 exercises to the invasion in 2022 was just acting. Putin is good at acting sincere and can do it so convincingly that he can persuade experienced politicians that he is sincere.
With the background of what happened in 2022, it is entirely possible that Putin decided before Trump's inauguration that he would never agree to a ceasefire or peace treaty and has just been stringing him along as long as he could.
So Trump has decided that he has to change direction. So he is targeting the cost of the war.
Trump plans to use tariffs to try to get India, China and other countries to stop buying Russian fossil fuels and uranium. Everything else as normal. If he succeeds this will help make PEACE easier. It will make it easier to end the war not harder.
The reason this would work is modern wars are very expensive and if you look at the difference between the Russian defense spending before the war and during the war, the war is more than paid for just by the fossil fuel revenue. Cutting the fossil fuel revenue would mean Russia can’t pay for the war, it would gradually run out of money. It wouldn’t do anything to other exports from Russia. The aim isn’t to destroy the Russian economy and it would still have a fossil fuel industry but only selling to other Russians.
Putin could pay for the war with a war tax of e.g. just short of 9% income tax might do it if I got my calculations right. But Russians are NOT at any risk of being forced to sing the Ukrainians anthem, or to be imprisoned or tortured by Ukrainians or of having their kids forcefully adopted into Ukrainian homes and their culture destroyed by Ukraine. Russians aren’t even sure why they are fighting. Ukrainians risk all of that for Russia. So it would be very unpopular to use income tax to pay for the war and Putin does care about his popularity with ordinary Russians, even though he is a dictator, does frequent polls to find out how they are thinking and how well his propaganda is working.
So this has a decent chance of persuading Putin to agree to a ceasefire and to end the war. Putin can’t stop trade tariffs on India and China by any military means and India and China do far more trade with the US than with Russia so US has more leverage with them than Russia does. And he is just asking them to end purchases of fossil fuels not other Russian products. And not asking them to stop sales to Russia of anything.
We will see if it works not immediately but after a period of weeks to months if Trump does succeed in persuading other countries to stop buying Russian fossil fuels.
If he succeeds the war may end a few weeks to months from now. If Trump fails then the war continues and Ukraine and its allies need to look for more levers to persuade Russia to stop. That’s it.
This is why the tariffs should work especially for India. This looks at India’stop importers:
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: India’s Oil Import Sources: 2021 vs May 2024
Light blue: 2021. Red: May 2024
Why the secondary tariffs should work - India can replace the low price Russian oil with slight increases in the oil from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the United States
2021:
Iraq 24%
Saudi Arabia 16%
United States 10%
Russia 2%
May 2024:
Iraq 20%
Saudi Arabia 11%
US 4%
Russia 41%
Yet Russia isn’t the top source by revenue. That shows how much cheaper its oil is. Here are the figures for 2025.
Iraq ($37.1B)
Saudi Arabia ($32.7B)
Russia ($25.5B)
United Arab Emirates ($14.8B)
the United States ($10.8B)
https://www.eximpedia.app/blog/crude-oil-import-in-india
Video:
[Skip to Contents or click on vertical column of dashes to the right on some devices]
So it's good. So far Trump has been doing everything he can to make it easier for Putin to agree to peace. Seen by many in Europe as favouring Putin too much. But even with all that, after months of negotiating giving Putin very favorable terms, Trump now agrees with Europe that Putin is not at present interested in ending the war. Putin hasn’t yet agreed to a genuine ceasefire, however short, even Ukraine’s generous offer of a ceasefire in the air and the sea which would greatly benefit Russia.
If an invader won’t negotiate peace, then the only solution is to stop the invasion. This is the ONLY thing that could JUST POSSIBLY lead to Putin considering a peace deal.
So how do you stop Putin's invasion? The obvious things have failed or take too long.
Russia has hardly moved for nearly 3 years and loses over 1000 soldiers a day. For most invaders that would be a reason to negotiate peace, but not for Putin.
Any NATO country could win this war quickly with its vastly superior F-35 fighter jets. But Ukraine’s allies are not considering sending these to Ukraine.
Various military ways Ukraine might start pushing Russia back so it loses instead of winning - may be possible o over weeks or months.
Russia may get weaker especially as it runs out of Soviet era gear - may happen but over timescales of months rather than weeks.
So what are we left with? Tackle the cost of the war
Russia earns over $500 million a day from sales of fossil fuels which go directly to the government.
The war costs Russia over $220 million a day extra compared to its defense budget before the war.
[based on the figure per year for the cost of the war converted to a cost per day, and the figure per day for oil revenue]
So Russia is paying for this war with the revenue from its sales of oil, much of it to India and China.
Modern soldiers are highly dependent on their shells, drones, vehicles, fighter jets etc and those in turn are very expensive to maintain and supply. Without those the soldiers can do very little and would have to leave Ukraine.
That is where the secondary sanctions come in. Secondary sanctions mean that Trump says he will put tariffs of 100% on China, India and other countries if they continue to buy Russian fossil fuels.
It’s very like the tariffs he’s already done. He has already imposed over 100% tariffs on China and then negotiated down. It’s like that again.
If he can persuade them to stop buying Russian fossil fuels, it won’t do ANYTHING to other exports from Russia. That’s not the idea.
Also even the Russian fossil fuel industry will still continue if Trump is successful but will mainly sell its fossil fuels to Russians and to the military. There are nearly 150 million Russians so that’s still a large market for them.
If the secondary sanctions succeed, Putine will have to decide whether to tax Russians to continue the war e.g. with
an 8.7% income tax to fund the war
[my calculation dividing the cost of the war by the total income of Russian workers]or accept Trump’s peace offer and negotiate a ceasefire
Ukrainians already pay for the war with 5% income tax. But they are willing to do that because their homes, their way of life, their culture and their children and their own liberty are at risk of Russia invades.
But Russians aren’t even that clear about why they are fighting. The war isn't that important to Putin either, not really. Not in a military way.
Putin is very focused on internal Kremlin politics and other internal matters which is why some of his decisions are a bit hard to fathom like giving up the Russian presence in the Middle East in Syria and Tartus port in order to capture a few more fields and small villages in Donbas.
But if the internal politics shift and it is no longer favourable to keep fighting in Ukraine he may stop and agree to a peace treaty.
The secondary sanctions
would NOT destroy the Russian economy and that's never been the goal. Very much misunderstood.
It just targets the revenue on oil, gas and uranium exports which Putin uses to fund his war.
And if he agrees to a ceasefire and peace agreement the sanctions would be lifted
Europe realized right at the start of the war that Putin's promises are useless when he broke the promise not to invade Ukraine and that giving Putin what he demands just leads to him demanding more.
Trump has only realized that recently. Anything he is given he just takes and then asks for more and the more that happens the more expansive he gets.
While if he has defeats in battle or sanctions inhibit his ability to fight that's when his thoughts turn to peace.
This is Putin’s decision tree
Trump gives Putin a week and a half to choose peace
Putin chooses peace Hurray!
Putin keeps fighting
Trump threatens India and China with secondary sanctions unless they stop buying Russian oil.
They don't stop and keep buying oil from Russia
They stop buying the oil
Putin's army gradually runs out of money to fight and Putin needs a quarter of a billion dollars a day
Putin chooses peace Hurray!
Putin raises taxes from Russians e.g. 8.7% income taxes and keeps fighting
Gradually Putin runs out of Soviet gear
Putin chooses peace. Hurray!
Ukraine gets new capabilities or levers
Putin chooses peace. Hurray!
Ukraine’s allies find another way to persuade Putin to stop the war
Putin chooses peace. Hurray!
For summary sections:
Video about the second half of this video.
Sanctions are not military - they are economic and take effect slowly - and responses would be economic
Sanctions are not military. And take effect slowly and they lead to talks and economic responses. Lots and lots of talking.
This means, and I can’t stress this too strongly, SANCTIONS CAN’T BE STOPPED BY SOLDIERS. They are not like tanks or fighter jets. They are economic. Fighting costs more money not less, and won’t stop sanctions.
Russia could try some kind of economic response but there's not much it sells or buys now that's of interest to the US which has very little trade directly with Russia.
Meanwhile we’ll see that China and India have much more trade with the US / Europe than with Russia.
It would involve lots of talks.
It will NOT be based on Lindsay Graham’s bill with the 500% sanctions which many criticized as being too inflexible. This bill never passed. John Thune reasoned that since Trump is going to act on it anyway then they don't need to pass the bill. They will if he wants it.
QUOTE Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Monday he would hold off on advancing a closely watched package of sanctions targeting Russia’s trading partners after President Donald Trump said he was prepared to act himself later this summer if Russian President Vladimir Putin doesn’t move toward a peace deal with Ukraine.
“It sounds like right now the president is going to attempt to do some of this on his own,” Thune told reporters. “If at some point the president concludes that it makes sense and adds value and leverage that he needs in those negotiations to move the bill, then we’ll do it. We’ll be ready to go.”
So it would be Trump threatening to impose 100% sanctions on China / India in much the same way he does anyway. But this time requiring them to stop trading with Russia to get them lifted.
Just on oil and gas and uranium.
Putin hasn’t responded - this is normal and means there is nothing he can do
So far Putin hasn't said anything about the sanctions.
Peskov, his spokesperson, said:,
"I would like to avoid any assessments."
https://interfax.com/newsroom/top-stories/112935/
That is all - that plus saying he’s taken note of Trump’s statements.
"We have taken note of President Trump's statements he made yesterday. The special military operation is continuing, and we remain committed to a peace process for settling the conflict surrounding Ukraine and securing our interests in the course of this settlement,"
That is normal for Putin. He makes a big response if there is a proposed action he can stop with bluffs. He doesn't usually respond to something that's already decided.
Why India and China are likely to comply with the request to stop buying Russian oil - most people are surprised to learn that Russia is a minor trading partner for them
Let’s look at India first:
Here GCC is the Gulf Corporation Council. Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Cooperation_Council
ASEAN is Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASEAN
This is sorted by the Total Trade column.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_trading_partners_of_India
Russia is fourth amongst individual countries, between UAE and Saudi Arabia.
It’s well behind the GCC, European Union, and ASEAN and just over half the trade for the USA.
For China, Russia is well behind, between Vietnam and Australia, 6th after the USA and that is behind EU and ASEAN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_China
And remember the sanctions are ONLY FOR THE ENERGY EXPORTS
oil
gas
uranium
Trump can also negotiate which he loves to do.
The most important thing here is the oil and especially Russia’s oil exports to India and China.
India also depends on Russia for uranium pellets which are a bit harder to replace, so that is a very natural exemption for Trump to grant to India which wouldn’t make much difference.
Then China buys the largest share of Russian oil - again if the oil is the most important one.
From that graphic, China + India alone pay just short of €10 billion a month on the fossil fuels. That’s over €300 million a day. Over $350 million a day. That’s enough to pay for the war with $100 million a day to spare.
A more detailed breakdown:
The total revenue is still well over half a billion a year, was a billion a year at the start of the war.
China might negotiate some kind of exemption with Trump too perhaps for the coal and gas. Or it might just stop importing coal and gas from Russia too. That would be a big shift, but not hard for China as Russia is a minor importer of gas for them.
I went into all that in one of my previous blog posts.
Why the secondary tariffs should work - for India at least
Let’s focus on India - even if it isn’t quite half of all the Russian oil exports it would make a serious dent on the funding for the war.
India USED to import most of its oil from the Middle East right up to the start of the war.
This looks at the top importers:
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: India’s Oil Import Sources: 2021 vs May 2024
Light blue: 2021. Red: May 2024
Why the secondary tariffs should work - India can replace the low price Russian oil with slight increases in the oil from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the United States
2021:
Iraq 24%
Saudi Arabia 16%
United States 10%
Russia 2%
May 2024:
Iraq 20%
Saudi Arabia 11%
US 4%
Russia 41%
Yet Russia isn’t the top source by revenue. That shows how much cheaper its oil is. Here are the figures for 2025.
Iraq ($37.1B)
Saudi Arabia ($32.7B)
Russia ($25.5B)
United Arab Emirates ($14.8B)
the United States ($10.8B)
https://www.eximpedia.app/blog/crude-oil-import-in-india
China has a much more diverse mix of suppliers and it's Russian oil increased less dramatically.
2021: 15%
2022: 17%
2023: 18.6%
From page 16 of https://www.nbr.org/wp-content/uploads/woocommerce_uploads/sr105_revengeofenergysecurity_nov2023.pdf
For India, it’s just about going back to before the war in terms of exports. It's reasonably plausible India would do that. It would spend a bit more on oil but the alternative is 100% tariffs on everything and it can still import everything else from Russia.
Plus likely some other sweetener for the deal of some sort.
I'm not so sure China would have so much of an incentive. But this is what Trump is good at. Deal making.
I think he has a genuine talent at that.
Once he is on the right lines that is.
Secondary sanctions would not by themselves end the war - Putin could just increase the tax on Russians - but this war isn’t really very important to Putin - he might well decide it’s not worth the risk of a 9.5% extra military tax on Russians
It's been all-out war since feb 24, 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine simultaneously from the North, East and South.
Ukraine wants the war to end yesterday indeed three and a half years ago. It only continues because Russia wants it to continue. Putin seems set to keep fighting for as long as he continues to gain territory in Ukraine even if it is only a few square miles a week of fields and an occasional hamlet or very small city.
TASS the Russian propaganda news program keeps running news stories saying that Russia has taken one more village, a one street village in the middle of the fields somewhere in Donetsk. This seems to be what the war is about for Putin right now. A source of stories every few weeks to say his army has won another hamlet. Of coures he never explains that this place is just one short street of houses.
If India can be persuaded to stop buying Russian oil then Putin will have to decide whether to end the war or increase the tax by 8.7% on average.
Ukraine already increased their military tax from 1.5% to 8.7% last December but their citizens are more willing to pay given that the future of their country is at stake.
Putin increased the tax but only for the highest earners.
If Trump does succeed in cutting off US sales - it's then really a question of what's more important to Putin - gaining a few more square miles of Ukraine, or avoiding a tax raise on his citizens. We'll likely find out a few weeks after 50 days from now if the US does succeed with the secondary tariffs.
The numbers of deaths of Russian soldiers or of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians don't seem to be important to Putin. Though he does care a lot about the future of his own regime.
If he does most experts think this will mean the war ends sooner.
Not immediately because it would take some weeks for the sanctions to take effect, if they do work.
Let’s look at the budget:
$65.91 billion in 2021
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/rus/russia/military-spending-defense-budget
$149 billion in 2024
https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/2504_fs_milex_2024.pdf
That’s an increase of $83 billion. Or $227 million a day. We’ll use this difference for looking at the taxes needed to pay for the war.
The total defense budget of $149 billion is $400 million a day.
At the start of the war Russia was earning about €1 billion a day ($1.17 billion) on its oil revenue. It's now less, but it is still well over €500 million a day ($583 million)
QUOTE In May, Russia’s monthly fossil fuel export revenues saw a 3% month-on-month drop to EUR 565 mn per day — the lowest since the invasion. The drops in revenue occurred despite a 4% month-on-month increase in their export volumes.costs of the war from its oil revenue which goes straight to the government.
So if theoretically all its oil revenue stopped then the war would have to stop or else Russia increase taxes.
In practice the secondary sanctions would likely only stop energy sales partly but probably sufficiently so that Russia could only continue the war by increasing taxes on Russian workers.
The taxes wouldn't be impossible but quite high.
Population of Russia is 143.8 million
Number of workers 72.5 million https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.TOTL.IN?locations=RU
$227 million a day = $3.13 a day extra tax per worker or $95.2 a month
[313*365/12]average monthly salary $1,100 per month.
[89,145 roubles = $1,100 per month]
Tax: 8.7% [1000*95.2/1,100]
So if the oil was cut off, if Putin payed for the war by taxing wages it would mean an extra 8.7% tax per person.
Or there might be other ways to pay for it.
He could do that but it would be unpopular.
By comparison Ukraine has a 5% military income tax per person
QUOTE STARTS
Military tax, introduced in 2014 at 1.5% when Russia began its war against Ukraine, will increase to 5% (with exemptions for military personnel). This tax is paid on all income, such as salaries, bank interest, dividends, profits, etc.
Military tax will be extended to small entrepreneurs taxed using a simplified tax system (FOPs).
Russia has also increased some of its taxes to pay for the war but mainly for the top few percent of earners.
It's oil revenues have gone down and it made up the difference by increasing taxes on high earners.
QUOTE STARTS
Revenues are expected to increase by 12 percent, with total revenue for 2025 projected at 40.3 trillion rubles (almost $425 billion). However, this rise isn’t due entirely (or even primarily) to oil and gas revenues. In fact, contributions from oil and gas will shrink slightly, accounting for 27 percent of total income, down from more than 30 percent previously, leading Finance Minister Anton Siluanov to say that Russia is reducing its dependence on oil and gas. That said, the budget’s accompanying report notes that revenue in this area is falling due to lower oil prices.
Meanwhile, non-oil and gas revenues are set to rise significantly. The government clearly states that it expects an increase in turnover taxes, particularly VAT, “in light of macroeconomic trends.” This likely refers to Russia’s economic overheating reaching a 16-year peak: production is running at full capacity and consumer demand is high, meaning Russians’ steady spending will help sustain the budget.
So - cutting the oil revenue wouldn't by itself stop the war but it would force Russia to increase taxes even more which would be unpopular.
Why this could stop the war and bring about peace if it works - short summary
In more detail:
if Trump can get India and China especially to stop buying the Russian oil then that
removes a large part of the half a billion dollars or so a day fossil fuel earnings for the Russian government's income.
The war costs Russia about $227 million a day.
That wouldn’t have an immediate impact, Putin could move money around, but Russia can't keep that up for long losing $227 million a day
So then they have to find another way to fund the war.
They can do it if they put in place
income tax of 8.7% for all Russian citizens.
As one way to do it.
Ukraine did that, indeed it had a military tax of 1.5% and now up to 5% income tax to fund the war.
But the Ukrainians are willing to do that because the future of their country is at stake.
Putin does care about what his population thinks, he does many polls of the opinion of ordinary Russians.
That is why he might decide to end the war. It is always for domestic reasons. Russia doesn't care much about public opinion outside Russia.
Putin is careful, risk averse, pragmatic, he has reasons for what he does though the objectives make little sense to others not meshed up in his strange world view and Kremlin politics
If this works then Russia would have trouble finding enough money to pay for
shells
drones
fuel for trucks
fighter jets
missiles
wages of soldiers
And then it has to decide, does it
start taxing Russians or
Go for peace
Russia would NEVER conclude
"I know how to solve it, let's fight NATO as well".
Can you see how that wouldn't work?
It would be far MORE expensive to try to
fight NATO as well as
fight Ukraine,
That
wouldn't save any money
wouldn't get new buyers for the oil.
would achieve nothing.
What he can do is
tax Russians or
agree to a ceasefire or peace deal.
That is assuming that India and China do end up having to stop or greatly reduce their purchases of Russian gas and oil.
The issue is that the Russians do not see the war as fighting for their culture’s survival or their way of life. Nor does Putin.
At some point he may then just decide it’s not worth it.
If that happens it will be pretty easy for him to tend the war.
Remember he was able to give up the Tartus port in Syria and the airbase there to the Rebels that overthrew the Assad regime. For most countries that would be seen as a huge failure of their leader. But Putin just told his people that he had achieved everything he set out to achieve in Syria.
In the same way he can just tell them he’s achieved everything he set out to achieve in Ukraine and few Russians will question him.
Russia gave up Syria and Tartus Port in the Mediterranean to concentrate its attention on tiny Pokrovsk, population 60,000 - and still has only just reached the suburbs over 6 months later - is this an army that can challenge NATO? Clearly no!
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Blue Text
Russia has ten times as many military aircraft as Ukraine and ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of over 2000 km and has been fighting for 6 months to try to capture tiny Pokrovsk with no success yet
Is this an army that can attack NATO? NO!
NATO is vastly superior to Ukraine
If Ukraine was a NATO country it could take over the Russian airspace over occupied Ukraine and the borders as easily as Israel took over the Iranian airspace - in one day.
Pokrovsk population 30,000 in peace time.
Pokrosk: Russia's big objective for 2024-5 - it gave up its Middle East presence, support of Assad regime and Tartus port in Syria for this
Scale: ten miles by ten miles square
Purple Text
No chance of Russia capturing Lyman, Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, or Druzhivka
Kostintynivka, Pokrovsk and Mymohad still hold
Names of Cities Circled with Rounded Rectangles
Lyman
Sloviansk
Kramatorsk
Druzhivka
Kostintynivka
Pokrovsk
Mymohad
Based on the ISW map for today.
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375
Putin gave up Syria and the Tartus naval base in order to pour more soldiers and equipment into the assault on Pokrovsk which has been its main target since then - apart from liberating Sudzha in Kursk oblast - a small city of 5,000 in peace time. Pokrovsk had a population of 60,000 in peace time.
That is the entire Russian army. It still has ten times as many aircraft as Ukraine in all categories.
It's got long range missiles that can hit Ukraine from over 2000 km away.
Ukraine doesn't have missiles like that, because its allies think they will make it too powerful against Russia.
Yet - Russia in a half year of fighting has managed to half encircle Pokrovsk but as you see they haven't yet been able to reach its suburbs.
It had a population of 60,000 in peace time.
This is the same army that wasn't able to protect Assad's regime from rebels mostly in open top trucks - because they prioritized sending all their soldiers to fight in Ukraine with special focus on Pokrovsk.
There is no way that any NATO country would be stuck for a year trying to take a city the size of Pokrovsk.
If Ukraine had the capabilities of NATO it could take over air control over occupied Ukraine and bordering areas of Russia as easily as |Israel took over Syria.
So - is the Russian army an army that is going to march across Europe taking cities one after another?
Obviously not.
Can Russia engage with NATO and Ukraine simultaneously in a war where NATO joins in with Ukraine?
clearly not.
This should help next time you see someone online claiming Russia is about to take over all of Ukraine or take over Kharkiv (population 1.4 million) or Kyiv (population 3 million). Or claiming it's going to attack NATO.
Why Putin bluffs: if Ukraine had the Tomahawks it could put an end to the Garen / Shahed drone attacks - unlikely to happen but shows how weak Russia is
The war in Ukraine is localized to Eastern and Southern Ukraine. Russia has no chance of taking any of the big cities and its drone attacks and attacks on the civilian infrastructure in cities are just to try to intimidate its population and force it to use its air defences to defend its cities instead of its soldiers, not of any military value.
Even today - Russia has two drone factories which together make thousands of drones a month which they fire at Ukraine. They are not buried deep underground and would be very vulnerable to the tomahawk cruise missiles which NATO has had since the early 1980s. They have different warheads and one of them is the bunkerbusting JMEWS if they needed it.
The JMEWS is mentioned here in the Wikipedia article, expect they were used in Iran:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_missile#Upgrades
There are only two of the drone factories.
The main Shahed drone factories are in Yelabuga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yelabuga_drone_factory
They are well within the more extended Tomahawk range of Ukraine.
This is from Google Maps and shows how far they are from the front line - it shows the distance you travel on foot as the closest that google maps gives to a straight line that I can share, you can measure distances on the map but not share those measurements.
I expect a similar strike to the ones used against Iran with the Tomahawks would leave the factories set back in a major way. Of course the Russians would rebuild. Further away or build deep underground. But it would stop almost all of it for some time.
The main point here is that Putin is able to protect his drone factories and other targets like that just using words, with his nuclear bluffs. That is why he bluffs. Not because he would ever use nukes. Just to protect his soldiers and factories.
Why Putin bluffs: if Ukraine had NATO F-35 fighter jets the war would soon be over in its favour - not going to happen but shows how weak Russia is
The Russian airforce is surprisingly weak. As I said they have never been able to take advantage of their 10 to 1 numerical superiority over Ukraine.
NATO has vastly superior equipment and vastly superior training. Israel took over the Iranian airspace in one day - destroying almost all the Iranian air defences on that first day because its F-16s are vastly superior to the older fighter jets Iran has.
If Ukraine had the NATO F-35 fighter jets - it wouldn't need NATO pilots, it could recruit foreign volunteers as it does already for its army. There are many countries that now fly F-35s and would have retired F-35 fighter pilots that might well be sympathetic and interested to fly for Ukraine. With the F-35s, as stealthy as a supersonic baked potato in radar cross-section - Ukraine could take over the airspace of occupied Ukraine and border areas of Russia. Just as Israel did for Iran, Ukraine could then destroy the Russian air defences from above and be ready to destroy any missile launcher in that area as soon as it launches anything.
If Ukraine had the F-35 the war wouldn't last much longer.
This is not going to happen. But it shows that Russia is not at all capable of fighting NATO. The bluffs are to handicap Ukraine not because there is any even remote possibility of Russia attacking NATO.
Russia is extraordinarily weak - the ONLY WORLD POWER WITHOUT A SINGLE AIRCRAFT CARRIER
Incidentally Russia is likely soon going to sell or scrap it’s only aircraft carrier.
It’s only ever seen service once. It was built in the Nikolayev shipyard in Soviet Ukraine. This is now within Ukraine and is not part of occupied Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykolayiv_Shipyard
It was known for the thick black smoke. This is because it burnt a heavy tarry oil called Mazut. That’s the source of a lot of its problems. Modern aircraft carriers are powered either by nuclear reactors or gas turbines.
So Russia is officially a world power without an aircraft carrier. It has no way to transport its aircraft to other countries or conflicts in the world any more.
It had only one ever deployment, to the Mediterranean sea off Syria in 2016-7 and in that deployment it lost two aircraft. A Mig-29 ran out of fuel while waiting to land and an Su-33 plunged off the deck into the sea when a cable snapped that was supposed to stop it.
QUOTE STARTS
Built at the Nikolayev shipyard in Soviet Ukraine, Russia lost access to key parts of her support infrastructure after the collapse of the USSR. This made for chronic support and maintenance issues from the beginning.
When she was running, her underpowered steam turbines frequently belched black smoke, which were reportedly visible from orbit.
The last time the Admiral Kuznetsov was deployed was in 2016-17 off Syria. In fact, it was the carriers first and only deployment, but it didn’t go well. Two aircraft were lost in just three weeks;.
The first, a MiG-29, crashed into the sea after running out of fuel while waiting to land. The second, an Su-33, plunged off the deck into the sea after an arresting cable snapped on landing.
Sent for maintenance in 2018, the PD-50 floating dry dock (Russia’s largest and the only one capable of holding Kuznetsov) sank beneath her during maintenance. A 70-tonne crane crashed onto the flight deck, causing major structural damage.
A year later, in 2019, a fire broke out during welding work, kiling two people and causing over $1 billion in damage. In 2022, another fire broke out, this time in an engine room. Less devastating than the first, it added to the ship’s list of misfortunes and delayed its return to service. It has never returned to service since.
https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/russia-scrap-admiral-kuznetsov-aircraft-carrier/
The Soviet Union had four Kiev class aircraft carriers, all made in Ukraine and gone now.
Admiral Gorshkov - sold to India which upgraded it and made it into its INS Vikramaditya carrier.
Kiev, sold to China where it is part of a theme park and developed into a luxury hotel
Minsk - sold to South Korea for scrap which then sold it to China which made it the main feature of the Minsk World theme park
Novorossiysk - sold to South Korea for scrap.
Russia never developed a nuclear powered aircraft carrier - it tried but then the Soviet Union broke apart and that ended those plans.
As Brent Eastwood put it:
Russia has been more of a land power than a sea power throughout its modern history, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union ended ambitions to build more carriers to accompany the lone carrier Russia fields now, that cursed bucket of bolts, the Admiral Kuznetsov.
. Russia's Aircraft Carrier Dreams Turned Into a Never Ending Nightmare
Without any aircraft carriers and without any presence in the Middle East any more, Russia’s army is confined to fighting around the borders of Russia. It depends mainly on railway lines for its logistics - supplies - and supplemented by trucks.
It does have its nuclear subs and its warships. But because they don’t have the ability to travel with fighter jets, then they are very limited in what they can do far from Russia. And Russia has no foreign ports outside the former Soviet Union.
The US has 11 aircraft carriers with 4 in service at any time
The USA typically has 4 aircraft carriers in service at any time and has 7 more in repairs or getting ready to deploy - UK has 2 and France has 1 - India has 2 and China has 3 - Russia has 0
We can see this discrepancy between Russia and NATO in force projection from the aircraft carriers. A modern fighter jet can’t fly that far without refueling. So aircraft carriers are important for force projection if a country wants to use its air combat capabilities in a foreign country. Air power is of course of supreme importance in a modern war.
We often hear of US carriers sent to one or other location in the world.
The US has 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers. Generally at any time some are in service, some are getting ready to deploy and some are being repaired. Half way through their 50 year lifetime they need a full overhaul and repair which takes years.
For background see: A look at where the Navy’s 11 aircraft carriers are now (it is out of date but explains the basics).
Typically four will be in action at any time. You can use their “Fleet Tracker” page to check where they are at any time (it’s not secret, you can’t hide a nuclear powered aircraft carrier fleet :) )
This shows the four currently in service as of writing this Each is the center of a strike force. The ones marked ARG are Amphibious Ready Groups.
For the latest positions see Fleet Tracker page
UK has two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers (conventionally powered)
. France has one nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle.
China has three aircraft carriers.
India has two aircraft carriers, one bought from the Soviet Union and one that they built themselves, recently commissioned.
So what about Russia’s aircraft carriers? Where are they? Well Russia has NONE. None that actually work. One that has been out of service since 2018 and not likely to be ready for action any time soon.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Of the 4 earlier Soviet era aircraft carriers, 1 was scrapped, 2 were sold to theme parks in China and one was sold to the Indian navy
Russia's only aircraft carrier, "that cursed bucket of bolts" the Admiral Kuznetsov.
Out of service since 2018. Russia seems to have given up on it for now.
Russia sent its crew to fight in Ukraine leaving it uncrewed.
US has by far the largest global reach of any country by way of force projection - 750 bases throughout the world
The US is the country with the largest global presence in the world by far, 750 bases in at least 80 countries. Here is a graphic summarizing the US overseas military bases
CC by SA Aljazeera https://www.aljazeera.com/terms-and-conditions
Then we have the French and UK bases - as well as some others from other NATO countries.
Let’s compare with Russia - it lost its only foreign bases in Syria, after HTS overthrew Assad’s regime in Syria.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Russia can't fight globally (US, France and UK can)
Putin would likek to get back the former Soviet Union states
- but knows it is impossible
- many former Soviet states and Warsaw pact countries are now in NATO
Russia like China covers a large land area with a huge border to defend.
It has NEVER had any interest in an overseas empire.
Russia is so weak it LOST its only foreign sea port outside the former Soviet Union
- Tartus (5) on the Mediterranean
- so it now has no warm-water (ice free) port with easy access to the Mediterranean until the war ends and the Black Sea opensGraphic shows:
Russia and Belarus (light red)
NATO (yellow)
Other close allies of the UK (Australia and New Zealand) (purple)
French foreign bases (purple)
UK foreign bases (dark blue)
Russian foreign bases (dark red)
Graphic combines Russian foreign bases: List of Russian military bases abroad - Wikipedia
UK foreign bases: Overseas military bases of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
French foreign bases Overseas military bases of France - Wikipedia
For the roughly 750 US military bases see: Infographic: History of US interventions in the past 70 years
Also, coloured in by hand (floodfill) the member states of NATO Member states of NATO - Wikipedia
And in pale purple: Australia and New Zealand which are very close allies of the UK though of course not in NATO as they are in the southern hemisphere far from the North Atlantic.
So now, is Putin going to start a fight with NATO?
No, of course not. He knows he is way outmatched.
Why we can be so confident there won’t be a world war
I have been confident since the war started. I've never had any concern. Nothing like the cold war. When there was a remote possibility. We all knew what to do back then if we were in a nuclear war. But to day? Nobody needs to know.
Nobody is going to fight a nuclear war deliberately.
Putin is very risk averse. He planned to invade Ukraine probably already in 2020. He has mastered impulse control long ago and is so controlled that experienced politicians like Macron had no idea that he was planning to invade Ukraine even when he was just playing a charade all along.
He did NOT invade Ukraine as a last minute decision. He planned to do it at least before the exercises in spring 2021. He only invaded because he expected to take over all of Ukraine in 14 days, easier even than for Crimea.
He is just so careful and cautious. When he lost the battle for Kyiv, when he lost the area of Kharkiv oblast, when he lost the Moskva, when he had to retreat from Kherson city, when the Ukrainians took over Sudzha - what is his habitual response?
He does NOTHING. He stops and thinks and works out what to do and finally acts weeks later or months sometimes.
Putin
only bluffs in order to try to handicap Ukraine.
He has never done any preparation to use nukes.
We have numerous precautions in place to prevent mistakes.
Then, if countries thought there was any risk of a nuclear war then we would all be told how to protect ourselves from fallout as that would save millions of lives.
Amongst all the click bait news, amongst all the statements from world leaders, Putin's bluffs etc, what we are missing is
not one serious mainstream news story about how to protect yourself from fallout.
If you search in the government websites and video channels you can easily find the material they prepared - videos, text etc.
But they aren't using it because there is no risk.
If there was a risk it would be running on the news every day telling us what to do. The material exists. They are not using it. Because there is no risk.
So that's the basis anyway for my confidence.
If this was the cold war I'd be telling everyone how to prepare to protect yourself from fallout and make sure everyone knows the basics.
But that’s not our situation today.
I follow at various times depending on what I’m looking for:
RUSI a major think tank that advises the UK government,
Russia Matters,
the Institute for the Study of War
numerous experts on X.
NONE of them are talking about WW3.
None of them ever talk about a world war except historically about WW1 and WW2.
As an example, searching the website for the ISW right now, it has a brief mention from 2023 in a sentence about Russian propaganda.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-december-30-2023
That is the most recent in a web search using the search terms:
site:understandingwar.org "world war III"
If you search for “world war” you find lots of mentions but they are historical mentions of World war 1 and world war 2.
So - what do you think?
If you need me to give my conclusions, as many scared people do - then - there is NO RISK OF A WORLD WAR.
If you are more of an independent thinker, then I’ve set out the basis for my own confidence.
You can use that to decide what to make of it yourself.
Why Putin will never use nukes
It NEVER makes sense for Russia to use nukes EVER.
Putin won't use nukes: would damage his regime - risk averse - only invaded Ukraine because sure (mistakenly) he'd win in 2 weeks - if there was a risk as in the Cold War we'd all know about fallout
For those who worry about world war - hopefully this fact check will help.
And this explains why we do NOT risk a world war at all from any of these news stories.
Why we do NOT risk a world war from: Ukraine, the Middle East, China, North Korea, or anywhere else in the world - next to impossible - and longer term are headed for a future without any war
For a first overview look at the graphics, read the bullet points summary, and read the section titles in the contents list - then dive into more detail in any section of interest. If you are on the laptop you can also navigate to any section by clicking on the column of horizontal dashes you see to the left of this page.
SEE ALSO
Why we are not at risk of a world war - moving in the other direction - more peace and stability in the larger picture and Ukraine and events in the Middle East are local conflicts
We have done lots to prevent a third world war, that's why the UN was set up and then the big security coalitions like NATO which is defensive not retaliatory. And almost the entire southern hemisphere is a nuclear weapons free zone and everyone agrees that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought - with many precautions now to prevent accid…
Contents
Sanctions are not military - they are economic and take effect slowly - and responses would be economic
Why the secondary tariffs should work - for India at least
Secondary sanctions would not by themselves end the war - Putin could just increase the tax on Russians - but this war isn’t really very important to Putin - he might well decide it’s not worth the risk of a 8.7% extra military tax on Russians
Why this could stop the war and bring about peace if it works - short summary
Russia is extraordinarily weak - the ONLY WORLD POWER WITHOUT A SINGLE AIRCRAFT CARRIER
Contents
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL
You can Direct Message me on Substack - but I check this rarely. 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.
I often write them up as “short debunks”
See Latest short debunks for new short debunks
I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:
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.
I go through phases when I do lots of short debunks. Recently I’ve taken to converting comments in the group into posts in the group that resemble short debunks and most of those haven’t yet been copied over to the wiki.
TIPS FOR DEALING WITH DOOMSDAY FEARS
If suicidal or helping someone suicidal see my:
BLOG: Supporting someone who is suicidal
If you have got scared by any of this, health professionals can help. Many of those affected do get help and find it makes a big difference.
They can’t do fact checking, don’t expect that of them. But they can do a huge amount to help with the panic, anxiety, maladaptive responses to fear and so on.
Also do remember that therapy is not like physical medicine. The only way a therapist can diagnose or indeed treat you is by talking to you and listening to you. If this dialogue isn’t working for whatever reason do remember you can always ask to change to another therapist and it doesn’t reflect badly on your current therapist to do this.
Also check out my Seven tips for dealing with doomsday fears based on things that help those scared, including a section about ways that health professionals can help you.
I know that sadly many of the people we help can’t access therapy for one reason or another - usually long waiting lists or the costs.
There is much you can do to help yourself. As well as those seven tips, see my:
BLOG: Breathe in and out slowly and deeply and other ways to calm a panic attack
BLOG: Tips from CBT
— might help some of you to deal with doomsday anxieties
PLEASE DON’T COMMENT HERE WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER TOPICS - INSTEAD COMMENT ON POST SET UP FOR IT
PLEASE DON'T COMMENT ON THIS POST WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OTHER TOPIC:
INSTEAD PLEASE COMMENT HERE:
The reason is I often can’t respond to comments for some time. The unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else
Also even an answered comment may scare them because they see the comment before my reply.
It works much better to put comments on other topics on a special post for them.
It is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here.
This is specifically about anything that might scare people on a different topic.
PLEASE DON’T TELL A SCARED PERSON THAT THE THING THEY ARE SCARED OF IS TRUE WITHOUT A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OR IF YOU ARE A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE YOURSELF - AND RESPOND WITH CARE
This is not like a typical post on substack. It is specifically to help people who are very scared with voluntary fact checking. Please no politically motivated exaggerations here. And please be careful, be aware of the context.
We have a rule in the Facebook group and it is the same here.
If you are scared and need help it is absolutely fine to comment about anything to do with the topic of the post that scares you.
But if you are not scared or don’t want help with my voluntary fact checking please don’t comment with any scary material.
If you respond to scared people here please be careful with your sources. Don’t tell them that something they are scared of is true without excellent reliable sources, or if you are a reliable source yourself.
It also matters a lot exactly HOW you respond. E.g. if someone is in an area with a potential for earthquakes there’s a big difference between a reply that talks about the largest earthquake that’s possible there even when based on reliable sources, and says nothing about how to protect themselves and the same reply with a summary and link to measures to take to protect yourself in an earthquake.
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL
You can Direct Message me on Substack - but I check this rarely. 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.
I often write them up as “short debunks”
See Latest short debunks for new short debunks
I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:
. doomsdaydebunks.bsky.social
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.
I go through phases when I do lots of short debunks. Recently I’ve taken to converting comments in the group into posts in the group that resemble short debunks and most of those haven’t yet been copied over to the wiki.
TIPS FOR DEALING WITH DOOMSDAY FEARS
If suicidal or helping someone suicidal see my:
BLOG: Supporting someone who is suicidal
If you have got scared by any of this, health professionals can help. Many of those affected do get help and find it makes a big difference.
They can’t do fact checking, don’t expect that of them. But they can do a huge amount to help with the panic, anxiety, maladaptive responses to fear and so on.
Also do remember that therapy is not like physical medicine. The only way a therapist can diagnose or indeed treat you is by talking to you and listening to you. If this dialogue isn’t working for whatever reason do remember you can always ask to change to another therapist and it doesn’t reflect badly on your current therapist to do this.
Also check out my Seven tips for dealing with doomsday fears based on things that help those scared, including a section about ways that health professionals can help you.
I know that sadly many of the people we help can’t access therapy for one reason or another - usually long waiting lists or the costs.
There is much you can do to help yourself. As well as those seven tips, see my:
BLOG: Doing what matters at times of stress
— new WHO booklet to help with mental health during COVID19 pandemic
BLOG: Breathe in and out slowly and deeply and other ways to calm a panic attack
BLOG: Tips from CBT
— might help some of you to deal with doomsday anxieties
PLEASE DON’T COMMENT HERE WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER TOPICS - INSTEAD COMMENT ON POST SET UP FOR IT
PLEASE DON'T COMMENT ON THIS POST WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OTHER TOPIC:
INSTEAD PLEASE COMMENT HERE:
Doomsday Debunked - fact checking stories that scare you
Post to comment on, with off topic potentially scary comments - or send me a private message - or use our group on Facebook
If you have something scary and new you want debunked please comment here rather than add to another post on a different topic. Or contact me privately, thanks…
Read more
3 months ago · 4 likes · 25 comments · Robert Walker
The reason is I often can’t respond to comments for some time. The unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else
Also even an answered comment may scare them because they see the comment before my reply.
It works much better to put comments on other topics on a special post for them.
It is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here.
This is specifically about anything that might scare people on a different topic.
PLEASE DON’T TELL A SCARED PERSON THAT THE THING THEY ARE SCARED OF IS TRUE WITHOUT A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OR IF YOU ARE A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE YOURSELF - AND RESPOND WITH CARE
This is not like a typical post on substack. It is specifically to help people who are very scared with voluntary fact checking. Please no politically motivated exaggerations here. And please be careful, be aware of the context.
We have a rule in the Facebook group and it is the same here.
If you are scared and need help it is absolutely fine to comment about anything to do with the topic of the post that scares you.
But if you are not scared or don’t want help with my voluntary fact checking please don’t comment with any scary material.
If you respond to scared people here please be careful with your sources. Don’t tell them that something they are scared of is true without excellent reliable sources, or if you are a reliable source yourself.
It also matters a lot exactly HOW you respond. E.g. if someone is in an area with a potential for earthquakes there’s a big difference between a reply that talks about the largest earthquake that’s possible there even when based on reliable sources, and says nothing about how to protect themselves and the same reply with a summary and link to measures to take to protect yourself in an earthquake.