Putin warns of 'destruction of civilization'. Hear retired general's response

Summary

Putin has openly threatened nuclear conflict, warning of civilization's destruction. General Hodges says to take the threats seriously since Putin doesn't care about innocent lives lost. However, Hodges believes Putin is blustering to make the West overreact and halt Ukraine aid. New intel shows Russia's threshold for nuclear use is lower than believed. Hodges argues seizing Russian assets, like the $285B identified, would aid Ukraine and send consequences to Putin's supporters.

Takeaways

• 😨 Putin has made his darkest and most specific nuclear threats yet against the West
• 😤 Putin warns of the destruction of civilization if conflict leads to nuclear weapons use
• 🤔 General Hodges believes Putin is using nuclear threats as bluster and to make the West overreact
• 😳 New intelligence suggests Russia's threshold for nuclear use is lower than previously thought
• 👍 Hodges thinks nuclear threats work to Russia's advantage by deterring more Ukraine aid
• 💰 There is $285 billion in frozen Russian assets that could go to Ukraine
• 😀 That frozen money could provide an enormous boost for Ukraine's war and reconstruction efforts
• 🔥 Sending the frozen assets to Ukraine would send a strong message to Putin's supporters
• 🤝 Yellen and Hodges agree sending assets to Ukraine would be a good idea
• 😅 Hodges believes announcing the goal of Ukraine defeating Russia would show resolve

Q & A

What specific nuclear threats did Putin make in his recent speech?

Putin threatened that Russia has weapons that can hit targets on Western territory, warning of the potential destruction of civilization if conflict leads to the use of nuclear weapons.

How seriously does General Hodges take Putin's nuclear threats?

General Hodges says Putin's threats should be taken seriously because Putin does not care about innocent lives, but he also believes they are largely bluster and an attempt to make the West overreact and deter itself.

What is the Russian threshold for using nuclear weapons according to obtained intelligence documents?

The documents suggest Russia's threshold for using nuclear weapons is lower than previously thought - making the navy more effective and stopping aggression were cited as potential justifications.

Why does General Hodges urge skepticism about the Russian nuclear threshold document?

General Hodges says Russian documents should be viewed skeptically - their purpose and how they were obtained should be questioned, as they may be part of efforts to make the West wary.

How does the prospect of Russian nuclear use impact Ukraine aid from the West?

Concerns over Russian nuclear threats have contributed to hesitation by the US, Germany and others to fully commit to helping Ukraine defeat Russia.

How much in frozen Russian assets does Treasury Secretary Yellen cite as available?

Yellen cites nearly $300 billion, around $285 billion, in frozen Russian assets that could potentially be directed to Ukraine.

How significant could redirecting those frozen assets be for Ukraine's war effort?

General Hodges says that amount is 4-5 times current aid packages, so it would enormously boost Ukraine's ability to purchase needed weapons and reconstruction materials.

Why would redirecting Russian assets also be useful beyond the monetary impact?

It would send a strong signal of consequences to Russians who have so far not felt impacts for supporting Putin and the war.

What is the West's current objective regarding the Ukraine-Russia conflict?

General Hodges says the US and Germany are unwilling to state clearly that their goal is for Ukraine to defeat Russia.

What does General Hodges recommend the West's objective should be regarding the conflict?

General Hodges believes the stated objective should be for Ukraine to defeat Russia on the battlefield.

Outlines

00:00

😮 Putin Threatens Use of Nuclear Weapons, Warning of 'Destruction of Civilization'

Putin makes his darkest and most specific nuclear threats yet against the West in a recent speech. He states that Russia has weapons capable of hitting the West, warning of conflict involving nuclear weapons and the destruction of civilization. Putin questions whether the West understands the implications of this.

😟 Retired US General Discusses Seriousness of Putin's Nuclear Threats

Retired US Army General Ben Hodges discusses the seriousness of Putin's nuclear threats. He says the threats must be taken seriously because Putin does not care about innocent lives, but are likely intended to make the West overreact and halt aid to Ukraine. Hodges states there is no upside for Russia to actually use nuclear weapons.

Keywords

💡nuclear weapons

Putin threatens to use nuclear weapons against the West if conflict escalates. This shows his willingness to use extreme force and could lead to destruction of civilization. The US warns of catastrophic consequences if Russia uses nukes.

💡threshold

The threshold refers to Russia's guidelines on when it would use nuclear weapons. New intelligence suggests the threshold is lower than expected, meaning Russia claims it would use nukes more readily than believed.

💡halt

In context, Putin's nuclear threats halt or slow down aid to Ukraine out of fear of escalating the conflict. The US and allies are wary of provoking Putin too far.

💡consequences

The US warns there will be catastrophic consequences for Russia if it uses nuclear weapons. This refers to severe retaliation but the exact consequences are unclear.

💡Kremlin

The Kremlin refers to the government administration in Russia and those closely tied to Putin's leadership. It is used when attributing certain strategies or messages directly to Putin's regime.

💡aid package

This refers to the financial and military aid being provided to Ukraine from the US and allies to help fight the Russian invasion. There is currently aid awaiting approval from Congress.

💡reconstruction

Reconstruction refers to rebuilding Ukraine's infrastructure, economy, and society after the war ends. Part of the aid could go towards reconstruction efforts.

💡consequences

Freezing Russian assets and sending them to Ukraine would have consequences in showing Putin's supporters that there are repercussions for enabling him. This could discourage further support.

💡privilege

The general says "thanks for the privilege" at the end, showing his appreciation for the opportunity to share his expertise and perspective on this critical issue.

💡boost

Sending frozen Russian assets to Ukraine would provide an enormous boost to their efforts by allowing more spending on military needs and reconstruction. This would aid significantly.

Highlights

Putin has made his darkest, and most specific threats yet, about using nuclear weapons, against the West.

There's no upside for Russia, if they use a nuclear weapon. Zero.

Our president has told them, that there will be, catastrophic consequences for Russia, if they use a nuclear weapon.

So really,, for the Kremlin,, their nuclear weapons are most effective, when they don't actually use them,, because we we deter ourself.

He had obtained intelligence documents, showing the Russian threshold, for using nuclear weapons,, and it was much lower, than anybody thought.

Are you surprised that the threshold, at least, you know in their written documents, of what they say is that low?

And it, and it works to halt Ukraine aid more.

Our objective, is for Ukraine to defeat Russia.

$285 billion in frozen, Russian assets.

That's about four or five times, the size of the aid package right now, that we're all waiting to get through.

So that would be an enormous boost, for Ukraine,, both for purchasing what they need to, to win this war,, but also even for reconstruction.

And right now, a lot of the people around, Putin have not really felt, the consequences for supporting him.

And so you think that be a good idea?

Absolutely.

Thanks for the privilege.

Transcripts

Putin has made his darkest

and most specific threats yet

about using nuclear weapons

against the West.

And they must ultimately understand

that we also have weapons

and they know about it.

Just as I said, we also have weapons

that can hit targets on their territory

All of this really threatens conflict

with the use of nuclear weapons

and therefore

the destruction of civilization.

Don't they understand this?

OUTFRONT now,

the retired

Lieutenant general Ben

Hodges, the former

commanding general of the US Army,

Europe and general,

It is wonderful to be with you in person.

I know obviously, usually

you are joining us from Germany.

So Putin has threatened to use nukes

more openly

than he ever has in his speech

that he just gave

warning of the destruction

of civilization.

Those were his exact words.

How serious is this to you?

Well,

of course, you have to take him serious

because he doesn't care about

how many innocent people might be killed.

But I think this is a continuation of his

style of using threats,

bluster,

because he sees how we overreact

every time.

There's no upside for Russia

if they use a nuclear weapon.

Zero.

Our president has told them

that there will be

catastrophic consequences for Russia

if they use a nuclear weapon.

So really,

for the Kremlin,

their nuclear weapons are most effective

when they don't actually use them,

because we we deter ourself.

We over react.

So the Financial Times,

Max Seddon had this great report

earlier this week.

He had obtained intelligence documents

showing the Russian threshold

for using nuclear weapons,

and it was much lower

than anybody thought.

In fact,

making the Navy more effective

was actually a justification

for using a nuclear weapon of some sort.

Stopping aggression was a definition

which, of course, could be defined

any way one wants to define it.

Are you surprised that the threshold

at least

you know in their written documents

of what they say is that low?

Well,

that is lower than what

I had always believed.

But you have to be skeptical

whenever you have a Russian document.

You know,

what's the purpose of this document?

How did how did we get this?

And again,

I think this is part of an effort

by the Kremlin to make us be wary.

And it

and it works to halt Ukraine aid more.

Yeah, it works

because even the administration,

which has done so much

and the German government,

the top two contributors,

are not willing to say

we want Ukraine to win.

Our objective

is for Ukraine to defeat Russia.

And I think this is tied

to their concern.

So Treasury Secretary Janet

Yellen says there's nearly

$300 billion, $285 billion in frozen

Russian assets.

She's saying

that should be sent to Ukraine.

And obviously, you've got the

congressional money on hold.

Obviously, $285 billion in frozen Russia.

This is a massive amount of money.

But how much of a difference

with something like that make,

even if you had a small portion of it?

Well, that's the quick math here.

That's about four or five times

the size of the aid package right now

that we're all waiting to get through.

So that would be an enormous boost

for Ukraine,

both for purchasing what they need to

to win this war,

but also even for reconstruction.

But it also would be useful

because it would send

such a strong signal to the Russians

that there are consequences

for what they do.

And right now, a lot of the people around

Putin have not really felt

the consequences for supporting him.

And so you think that be a good idea?

Absolutely.

All right.

Well, General, it's

great to see you and thank you.

Thanks for the privilege.