Demystifying Russia’s Tactical Nukes and Raising the West’s Nuclear IQ

Since the early days of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has consistently employed various means of nuclear blackmail in an effort to push Kyiv, and its Western supporters, to the negotiating table. Vladimir Putin and other government officials have not shied away from feigning nuclear strikes in an attempt to manage any escalation on the frontlines. Most recently, Moscow announced that it would station some of its tactical nuclear weapons on Belarusian territory. And while it remains unclear how these nukes might be used and even who will have control over them, these developments have raised considerable alarm in Kyiv and many Western capitals.

These concerns are all the more warranted following Russia’s destruction of the Kakhovka dam in southern Ukraine, which has had catastrophic effects for the environment and populations in the surrounding region. This act in turn has effectively compromised the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), as the water level for the nuclear reactors’ cooling ponds runs dangerously low. Moreover, reports are growing that Russian forces have mined the ZNPP as well as the Crimean Titan chemical plant, potentially in preparation for explosions similar to what transpired with the dam.

Given these recent provocations, it is critical for Western policymakers to understand the true probability for the Kremlin to resort to tactical nuclear weapons, as well as what affect they would have on Ukraine and its neighbors. Furthermore, the West must demonstrate a strong resolve to Putin in dissuading the Russian leader from seriously considering such a move. As such, The Jamestown Foundation was proud to host a panel of Russian and nuclear experts consisting of Dr. Phillip A. Petersen, Lt. Col. Jim Gifford, Col. (ret.) Sam Gardiner, Dr. Francesca Giovannini, and Admiral (ret.) Ihor Kabanenko. The panel was moderated by Lt. Gen. (ret.) Ben Hodges, with Jamestown President Glen E. Howard offering introductory remarks.

[als]

This is very good content, some excellent minds, questions and analysis.
Thank you Gen Ben, quality time spent here !!

[miroslavavisinger]

So smart Mr. HODGES explanation. Always like to hear him. Thanks general. 👍❤️

[AlexPalco]

Interesting conversation. Should listen twice. However a felt lack of complex view on total warfare - cyber warfare in addition to nukes.

[supersik]

This ppl are the one which should be sent to fight in a war on firist lines

[melodypotter]

This was an excellent group of panelists. They all shared very well thought out and on target views concerning the different variables of this war. I was impressed and quite a bit more educated on nuclear warfare. Thank you, General Hodges, for the tremendous job you continue to do in trying to assure that Ukraine gets what's needed to end this war. And for sharing your updates.🇱🇷🇱🇷

[dkudlay]

1:17:07 Did he just admit to the fact that USA was not responcible for capitulation of Japan after Hiroshima? A sliver of truth after 1 and quarter hours. Its true it was the Russians which defeated Japan after the destruction of 2 million Kwantoon army.

[SuperGriffin]

Better sound quality would have been great.

[erikneelsenart]

The way I look at it is, it is literally impossible for any country to launch a nuclear weapon without committing mass suicide. Therefore, I think nuclear weapons have essentially become obsolete in the modern era.

[TimBabych]

Most interesting part to me is 7:17. The group is certain that fourth gen nuclear weapons are here. Clean, low-yield, fusion-only nuclear weapons. Blurring the line between conventional and nuclear munitions. Probably within reach of many other industrialized nations. Fascinating.

[halidogmanthehero]

i had no idea that we had small tactical nukes for decades - seems to me that giving same to NATO members in EU would be a very good idea. Poland, Sweden, Finland, UA - would pretty much put the Russian threat to bed.

[PerriBelcourt]

Bring in American retired military advise that are on Russia side instead of nszi Ukraine military

[andrewareva]

Seems like the loss of diplomacy and interaction with Russian leadership and military leadership is seriously displayed here with Francesca unsurprisingly being the only one with recent Russian interaction and the only one with analysis based on realism. Sam's analysis is profoundly pationizing towards thr Russians esp at 1:07:10 saying that we aka NATO and the US need to "educate" the Russians. Escalating to deescacalate does have an example in history called Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Russia drops a nuke on a major city in Ukraine every week except Kyiv, I am 100% confident that Ukraine would unconditionally surrender or have NATO force their hand to prevent a wider nuclear war. And if there is an air campaign over Russia by NATO eliminating all Russian forces, 100% Russia would be considered to have no choice but to use nuclear weapons and will successfully be able to sell that as using nukes as a last resort. It's fairly obvious that if Sam's argument that Russian conventional forces are overwhelmingly outmatched by NATO conventional forces, that sells the idea that Russia has no choice but to use nukes and they are using them as a last resort even better. Expect BRICS and the rest of the global south not to be as outraged as you expect.

[paulburton]

and what is russia going to do if Ukraine creates a dirty nuclear bomb and lets it go over moscow, st petersberg, and other russian cities. Without claiming who did it. Ukraine is smart and prepared

[inzhener]

The important is to publicly say that if even one Wagner mercenary crosses the NATO border or bullet is fired at a Pole or Lithuanian, there will immediately come 20 ATACMS hitting the Wagner base in Tsel ("Target" in Russian) in Belarus and 20 tomahawks hitting Lukashenko in MInks.