The world wakes up to horrifying news.
A mushroom cloud rising over a Ukrainian city, as Putin escalates by pulling the nuclear
trigger for the first time since 1945.
The forces of NATO gather to discuss their next move.
This escalation, and the associated loss of life can’t be tolerated - but how should
they respond?
What retaliation is in order - and how will NATO avoid World War 3?
There are several options, and most will rely heavily on the circumstances surrounding the
attack.
But this kind of attack couldn’t go unanswered.
This response would be more likely in the event of Putin using tactical nuclear weapons
in a region like Kherson or the Donbas, near the Russian border.
While the immediate loss of life would be terrible and radioactive contamination in
the area could impact Ukraine for years to come, a tactical nuclear weapon isn’t likely
to cause the same kind of devastation that we saw in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the
regional fallout is only likely to hit Ukraine - and possibly Russia, which is the risk of
nuking someone on your border.
But this kind of attack couldn’t go unanswered.
This response would be more likely in the event of Putin using tactical nuclear weapons
in a region like Kherson or the Donbas, near the Russian border.
While the immediate loss of life would be terrible and radioactive contamination in
the area could impact Ukraine for years to come, a tactical nuclear weapon isn’t likely
to cause the same kind of devastation that we saw in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the
regional fallout is only likely to hit Ukraine - and possibly Russia, which is the risk of
nuking someone on your border.
So NATO might not feel compelled to enter the fray, but they would definitely respond.
The first step would be to consult with Ukraine and its leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
The stiff-backed Ukrainian President has been steadfast in not giving up an inch of his
territory, no matter what it costs.
A nuclear attack might change that calculus - but probably not too much.
After all, the stakes are still the same - Ukraine knows that they either win, or become a Russian
puppet state subject to harsh reprisals for their resistance.
It’s a scary prospect for Ukraine, but before we go any further, we wanted to thank the
sponsor of today’s video - BetterHelp.
BetterHelp is the world’s largest therapy service, and it’s 100% online.
With BetterHelp, you can tap into a network of over 25,000 licensed and experienced therapists
who can help you with a wide range of issues.
To get started, you just answer a few questions about your needs and preferences in therapy.
That way, BetterHelp can match you with the right therapist from their network.
Then you can talk to your therapist however you feel comfortable, whether it’s via text,
chat, phone or video call.
You can message your therapist at any time, and schedule live sessions when it’s convenient
for you.
If your therapist isn’t the right fit for any reason, you can switch to a new therapist
at no additional charge.
With BetterHelp, you get the same professionalism and quality you expect from in-office therapy,
but with a therapist who is custom-picked for you, more scheduling flexibility, and
at a more affordable price.
Get 10% off your first month at betterhelp.com/infographics - and I’ve also linked them below in the
description or scan the QR code.
Now, back to Ukraine.
Ukraine knows that they either win, or become a Russian puppet state subject to harsh reprisals
for their resistance.
So while the price would be high, they’re likely to continue fighting - and they’re
going to want whatever they can get in the way of aid from NATO.
If the purse strings were getting a bit tight before, they’re likely to loosen now as
outrage over Putin’s nuclear attack spreads.
More HIMARS rocket systems and other high-tech tools would flow into Ukraine, and any restrictions
on their use might be loosened as Ukraine strikes back at Russia.
Even hesitant allies like Israel and India, which have complex relations with Russia,
might be compelled to offer military aid.
And some items on the wish list might become available.
Ukraine has made major requests of world governments, and they’ve been turned down occasionally.
Some countries worry that providing high-level weapons could be considered an act of war
by Russia, but if Putin goes too far, those objections may be overruled.
One example is Israel’s Iron Dome system, which is crucial in fending off Hamas rocket
fire.
This may not be something that can be transferred easily - the system is not designed to take
on powerful Russian rockets - but Israel may provide Ukraine with key components that can
be adapted.
The same goes for the Army Tactical Missile System, a powerful surface-to-surface missile
that would give Ukraine long-range striking capabilities.
The US has held off on this one for fear that Ukraine could hit Russian cities, but it may
be decided that the gloves are off.
And for Russia, the screws would be tightened.
A nuclear attack would be a clear indication from Putin that he’s not going to back down
and will do everything to win the war.
And NATO would escalate right back.
Right now, the primary tool for the world against Russia has been economic sanctions
- cutting Russia off from much of the global economy.
However, certain key things were exempted.
Russia isn’t banned from importing or exporting essential supplies, and many companies have
chosen to continue doing business with them.
That could change, as the world decides to try to starve Putin out.
However, Russia still has some key allies - including Iran, which gleefully provides
Russia with drones; and China, which has provided Russia with key supplies while being fairly
ambivalent on the Ukraine war.
And it may be time to target those allies.
Russia has only a few allies left besides those two, many of which like Syria and Venezuela
don’t have many resources.
Even Russia’s usual ally Pakistan supports Ukraine’s sovereignty and has been mostly
staying neutral in the recent conflict.
The US and NATO could turn up the heat on Russia’s allies by imposing a secondary
embargo on them - cutting off trade as long as they’re providing military aid to Russia
against Ukraine.
While the US has limited trade at best with Iran, Venezuela, and Syria, the back-and-forth
between the US and China is a huge part of both economies.
Turning off that tap would cause no small amount of supply chain issues in the US- but
it might also cause China enough pain that they would decide it’s not worth it to keep
supplying Russia with tools to fight against Ukraine.
And there are other tools that NATO can use against Russia.
For one thing, Russia is short of one key resources needed to win a war - manpower.
They’ve lost a massive number of soldiers in Ukraine, far more than Ukraine has, and
a recent attempt at a draft led to countless untrained young men being thrown into combat
as glorified cannon fodder - often with outdated weapons and little hope to survive.
This has turned many people in Russia against Putin - and that could be an opening for Ukraine
and its allies.
If Ukraine and NATO offered refuge to any soldier defecting from Putin, it could massively
unbalance Putin’s army and lead to a flood to the border.
While Putin could undoubtedly slam the doors shut and put down protests using brute force
- like he always does - it’s a cardinal truth that any leader who is shooting at his
own people is not in good shape.
Finally, the international community might have its say.
The United Nations could also be used to damage Russia through the Security Council.
There, any resolution can be vetoed by one of five permanent members - the United States,
United Kingdom, France, China…and Russia.
That has kept any UN sanctions from being passed against Russia.
Would it be possible to kick Russia off the Security Council?
It’s not clear.
A two-thirds majority vote of the General Assembly can expel a member from the United
Nations - but bylaws may indicate that those resolutions have to pass through the Security
Council first.
Still, it would be another diplomatic black eye for Russia whether it worked or not.
But this strategy has its limits.
The goal of escalating sanctions and isolation on Russia is to push Putin past his breaking
point and lead him to either pull out of Ukraine - or be removed by his own people.
But there’s a second possibility - that he reaches the point of no return and decides
to take everyone with him.
At a certain point, Putin might just decide that sanctions are an act of war and that
he’s justified in opening fire on NATO weapons shipments or worse.
At which point, the larger war that sanctions were trying to avoid has found the country
anyway - and NATO might be caught unprepared as World War 3 kicks off.
This is why some forces in NATO are arguing for a stronger potential response.
Option Two - NATO Gets Involved
When asked in October about the possibility, a NATO official said that a nuclear strike
would likely prompt a physical response from the organization.
This could mean any number of things, but it’s likely that this would come into play
if Russia used higher-yield nuclear bombs against major Ukrainian cities, or if this
became a regular occurance.
Then the cost of letting this go on might be too high to pay - and NATO would decide
it’s time to provide direct support to Ukraine rather than simply supplies.
But what would this look like?
The initial goal would be to keep this from devolving into a full war between NATO and
Russia - if that’s possible.
That would mean trying to avoid engaging Russian troops directly, but providing military support
to Ukraine.
This wouldn’t be a full mobilization like what’s happening in Russia - instead, elite
teams of NATO forces and weapons would be placed either on Ukraine’s border or within
it to deter future Russian aggression.
This would attempt to push Putin into a corner and make his generals worried that confronting
NATO directly would lead to the end of the Russian regime.
But this can backfire - and Putin isn’t the type to back down.
Which is why another tactic’s time may have come.
In the opening days of the war, there was a call for a no-fly zone over Ukraine, but
this was turned down for one simple reason - it’s not what it sounds like!
Many of the proponents made it sound like the US and NATO could magically prevent Russian
planes from entering Ukrainian airspace, but what it would actually do is places NATO planes
in Ukrainian airspace to shoot down any foreign planes that entered.
At this point, it would be a shooting war over Ukrainian territory in what’s essentially
a neutral zone - or at least we classify it as a neutral zone.
Because Russia still claims Ukraine as part of its territory.
And that once again stands the risk of escalation.
The goal is to provide enough military support to prevent further nuclear attacks by Putin
and protect Ukraine without actually triggering a larger war between superpowers.
The problem with that strategy is that it relies entirely on Putin’s discretion, and
his definition of the facts on the ground may differ radically.
Remember, this is a guy who sent a bunch of troops into occupied regions with guns, pointed
those guns at voters while they voted on whether to be annexed by Russia, and then proudly
displayed the results that all the people voted to join Russia at gunpoint.
Threading the needle with him is not easy.
So what could NATO do to militarily defend Ukraine without triggering a larger conflict?
The key to remember is that this would primarily be a defensive conflict.
NATO would likely limit itself to trying to intercept and turn back Russian planes heading
toward cities, shooting down Russian missiles before they hit their target, and protecting
vital infrastructure like power grids and nuclear plants.
While conflict with Russian troops would be inevitable, NATO wouldn’t initiate it.
It would also likely dedicate itself to protecting the bulk of Ukraine, particularly major cities
like Odessa, Kyiv, and Lviv - as opposed to the contested areas like Crimea and the Donbas.
While Ukraine hasn’t ceded any of those areas, they’re currently partially or totally
occupied by Russia - and Russia considers them part of Russia, so engaging Russian planes
there could be considered an act of war.
Therefore those regions would likely be left to Ukrainian forces to defend.
But NATO could help in another key area.
One of Russia’s tactics has been to try to control the sea access to Ukraine, particularly
access to the Black Sea.
This is a key shipping lane for grain and other resources, and Putin attempting to blockade
it put the global food supply in jeopardy.
While Putin backed down recently when Turkey challenged the blockade, it’s a constant
threat - and NATO forces enforcing freedom of movement on Ukraine’s maritime border
might give him pause before interfering with commerce again.
In some ways, NATO’s role in this option would be less to declare war on Russia and
more to attempt to enforce a stable status quo in the region.
Would this strategy work?
It depends heavily on multiple factors.
For one thing, it requires that Putin behave like a rational actor - which is iffy, if
not impossible.
If he views any presence by NATO in Ukraine as an attack, nothing can stop him from escalating.
However, if he allows it to become a war of attrition, NATO’s presence could become
a way to shore up Ukraine’s defenses long-term.
NATO would likely focus on providing weapons and the troops to operate them rather than
any heavy-duty troop infusion for a number of reasons.
For one thing, Ukraine isn’t hungry for troops.
Zelenskyy instituted a draft for fighting-age men not long after the war began, and most
Ukrainians are fiercely patriotic and ready to fight.
You might even find a few brave grandmas holding their rifles in the cities.
Second, Ukraine has lost fewer soldiers than Russia - and every Ukrainian soldier knows
what they’re fighting for.
But this strategy has other benefits too.
A limited NATO presence in Ukraine might do wonders to protect the country’s infrastructure
during the war.
It would also serve as a deterrent to the Belarusian government, whose border is close
to Kyiv.
Their leader Aleksandr Lukashenko is the only other dictator in Europe besides Putin, and
is a close ally of Russia - to the point of basically being a puppet state.
There have been persistent rumors that Belarus may attempt to invade and make a move on Kyiv
while Russia concentrates on the east.
NATO being present might prevent that, as Belarus is far less capable militarily than
Russia.
But this strategy comes at a high risk.
The goal is to “escalate to de-escalate”, by adding troops and weapons designed to deter
Putin and his allies.
But that depends entirely on his discretion, and it’s impossible to know exactly what
Putin would consider a provocation worthy of war and what he wouldn’t.
It would turn every encounter with Russian troops into a Sword of Damocles, with Putin
holding his finger over the nuclear button.
When the first challenger to a no-fly zone over certain parts of Ukraine comes streaming
through, will the NATO forces in charge have the guts to pull the trigger and blow them
out of the sky?
And what would come next?
Some say that if you’re going to escalate, you might as well go all the way.
Option 3 - All-Out War
It’s the worst-case scenario - Putin not only uses a nuclear weapon, but he targets
one of Ukraine’s major cities with a high-yield weapon.
Tens of thousands are killed immediately, with countless more to come due to radiation
burns and poisoning.
The city is essentially destroyed, the country is thrown into chaos, and it’s initially
not even clear if Ukraine’s government has survived.
It was a clear attempt at a decapitation strike on a foreign country - and it becomes clear
it failed once Zelenskyy is able to get in touch with NATO leaders from a secure location.
And the horror is just beginning.
The fallout is spreading, and some of it has hit NATO allies, sickening people outside
of Ukraine.
It’s now an international crisis - and Putin responds by threatening direct hits on NATO
if there is any retaliation.
It’s clear that the war is escalating - the only question is, how to escalate it and how
far to go?
The first stage would likely be similar to the previous plan, sending in NATO weaponry
and a small number of troops to shore up the country’s defenses - but it wouldn’t stop
there.
This time, all options are on the table.
And in this scenario, the target is Russia itself.
NATO needs to move carefully here, because one wrong move could potentially trigger World
War 3.
Russia has more nuclear weapons than any country in the world, and no one is sure how many
of them work.
While its smaller tactical nukes are newer and more likely to work, its nuclear missiles
date back to the Cold War and no one is sure how many of them are still operational.
A Russian retaliation could fizzle - or it could lead to a world on nuclear fire and
the end of human civilization.
So a direct attack on Russia is highly unlikely, even in retaliation to a major nuclear attack.
So what’s the next move?
It may come back to another famous hunt for a wanted scourge of humanity - Osama Bin Laden.
The terror leader was notoriously hard to find and moved between safe houses, and the
US was very careful not to accidentally declare war on an ally in trying to find him.
The odds are Putin has probably done the same, going to one of his safehouse bunkers far
away from the most dangerous places in the event of NATO retaliation.
So any retaliatory attack targeting him would need to be planned very carefully - because
the odds are, NATO only gets one shot to get it right.
But targeting Putin doesn’t put an end to the crisis.
Many of Putin’s key lieutenants are just as militant as him - with some, like Chechen
leader Ramzan Kadyrov, being even more extreme.
Taking out Putin without taking measures for the future of Russia might lead to things
getting worse, as a new Russian leader vows to take revenge for the assassination and
escalates the war.
So during the period that NATO was trying to locate Putin’s safehouse, they might
also want to recruit a key player in the Russian government seen as more reasonable to potentially
take over in the aftermath.
While reasonable people in the Russian government are few and far between, a potential candidate
might be Sergei Shoigu, the current Minister of Defence.
While he started out as a hard-liner, he fell out of favor with Putin due to his pragmatic
approach.
He could potentially be Russia’s Erwin Rommel - the Nazi General thought of as Hitler’s
best military mind who was later involved in an assassination plot against the mad dictator.
So what would a NATO attack on Russia after a Russian nuclear attack look like?
In contrast to the first two World Wars, it wouldn’t be a prolonged affair.
In fact, it might be over before anyone realizes it’s happening - and either it would work,
or it would provoke a massive shooting war that could envelop multiple continents.
Once Putin realizes he’s under attack, he would likely retaliate quickly, so he would
likely be target #1.
Once the intelligence is secure and NATO knows where he is, they would likely hit his safehouse
with everything they have.
This could be conventional weapons, but it’s likely they would use low-yield tactical nuclear
weapons with earth-penetrating capability - like the B61-12 Gravity Bomb, the latest
manifestation of a weapon that has served the US well since the Cold War.
And from there, things would move fast.
Once the hit on the bunker has been successful, NATO forces would likely move on to taking
out other high-level targets.
This might include major Russian weapons outposts that could be used to attack Ukraine, as well
as potential Russian leaders who would be a threat to Shoigu in the ensuing power struggle.
But NATO would likely not attempt to occupy Russia or attack major cities like Moscow.
A country like Russia can’t be beaten without a long, bloody war - just ask anyone who tried
to invade them in Winter!
The goal would be to eliminate the current threat.
But now comes the hard part - diplomacy.
Taking out Putin would not resolve the larger conflict, and it wouldn’t undo the bad blood
that’s been created.
But with new Russian leadership, it would be the ideal time to bring everyone to the
table.
Zelenskyy would likely be coming in filled with anger and with big demands - such as
the removal of Russian forces from all Ukrainian territory including Crimea, and for reparations
for the damage caused by the war.
But Russia, which considers Crimea an essential part of its territory, would be unlikely to
agree even under pressure.
Likewise, they would be unlikely to admit fault and offer repayment.
It may fall to the rest of the world to provide the aid Ukraine needs, and hard-boiled negotiations
may wind up providing a solution where Russia withdraws from everything but Crimea - not
an ideal solution for anyone, but mostly acceptable to everyone.
This is the good ending - but things could go wrong in so many ways.
For one thing, Russia is known for responding harshly to any provocation, and if the initial
strike falls short, it would likely trigger massive retaliation.
The same goes if NATO’s choice of a replacement leader is unable to consolidate support and
a hard-liner takes control.
Either scenario could pull the US into a larger war with no chance for de-escalation - and
everything would be downhill from here.
Likewise, negotiations could break down and the war could resume - with NATO now involved
whether it wants to be or not.
Of course, there is another option…but no one’s going to like it.
Option Four - Retreat!
Nuclear bombs are terrifying.
There’s a reason no one has pulled the trigger since 1945 - the threat of escalation and
mutually assured destruction has kept even the angriest world leaders at bay.
So it’s entirely possible that if Putin hits Ukraine with a nuclear weapon, the tide
of world opinion would change.
Even now, many figures are calling for negotiations and disengagement, and this mindset would
likely gain popularity.
So it’s possible more dovish figures would gain power in NATO governments, aid to Ukraine
would dry up, and Putin’s gambit to scare the world into silence would succeed.
But would this be the end of the conflict?
In a word…not likely.
Putin has long been a maximalist, lamenting the glory days of the Soviet Union and wanting
to recapture it.
If he gets away with conquering Ukraine, he likely wouldn’t stop there.
Russian doctrine states that no NATO nation is allowed to be directly on Russia’s borders
- and all the countries that border Ukraine would now be violating that, including Poland.
He might also set his sights on the central Asian nations like Kazakhstan that gained
their independence in the early 1990s, none of which are covered by NATO protection.
Vladimir Putin would have learned - and taught the world - that old-school conquest still
works in the modern day.
Would he stop with Ukraine or try to fulfil his dreams of recreating the Soviet Union?
And would a future Russian leader follow suit?
At the moment, NATO watches, waits - and prepares its plan if the worst happens.
Want to know more about this nightmare scenario?
Check out “Could Russia Win a War Against NATO?” or watch “This Will Happen If the
US Pulls Out of NATO” for another crisis scenario.