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.
