Nuclear weapons would not have saved Ukraine from Russia: military expert explained

If Ukraine had remained a nuclear weapon, it still would not prevent the Russian invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea. This was told to the “observer” military expert Alexey arestovich.

He explained that nuclear countries do not use weapons of mass destruction, even in war.

“If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, do you think that Russia seized the Crimea? A nuclear weapon has only a very small deterrent. Nuclear Pakistan and India happy at war, nuclear India and China are at war, Argentina attacked Britain, and seized the Falkland Islands. And release them I had infantry, which churned the dirt there, and perished in the mud, and no nuclear weapons have not helped. Nuclear Israel is constantly at war for 60 years. Nuclear Russia is constantly at war. The function of nuclear weapons is a warning of a major war. It is a guarantee of mutual destruction. That is, nuclear weapons in a certain way protects. But this status is kept, only the US and Russia. Other countries that have nuclear weapons, are not able to completely destroy your enemy, because there is not enough ammunition. It’s such a hyped bubble,” – said arestovich.


  • “West 2017”: Russia is rehearsing nuclear missile strike – Turchynov

He noted that the presence of nuclear weapons in countries not guard against new forms of aggression.

“No country possesses nuclear weapons is not spared from war. If you do not work a standard war, the country will attack a terrorist war, a hybrid that does not qualify as war and does not give rise to the use of weapons and armed forces. Nuclear weapons are the most ineffective weapon in the world” – summed up the military analyst.

Recently, the Russian oppositionist Konstantin Borovoy assessed the likelihood of Russia’s use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine. According to him, Putin needs nuclear missiles to political blackmail, not for war.