President of Russia Vladimir Putin has signed into law changes to the country's nuclear doctrine. Moscow will now consider a conventional attack on Russia by any nation that is supported by a nuclear power. A joint attack. This move comes after President Biden gave Ukraine the green light. [00:00:17] You might remember to strike targets inside Russia using American supplied long range weapons. In September, Vladimir Putin warned that if the US allowed Ukraine to use the atacms inside Russia, it would mean that America and Russia were at war. [00:00:34] Well, Ukraine has now used the Atacms, the long range missiles that have been provided by the United States inside Russia. And this is what's leading to an escalation of this ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. So now Vladimir Putin has essentially lowered the standard or lowered the bar [00:00:53] for using his arsenal of nuclear weapons. And this is the latest escalation toward a wider war. And potentially mutually assured destruction. Now, today, for the first time, Ukraine did use those atacms. I wish they didn't name the long range missiles that name, but [00:01:10] that's what they're called inside Russia. Let's watch more on that. The Kremlin says Ukraine has fired us. Supplied long range missiles at a military facility inside Russia, in what would be the first attack since Washington authorized the use [00:01:25] of its weapons on Russian territory. The Ministry of Defense saying Ataka missiles targeted the Bryansk region in the early hours. Moscow says five of the missiles were shot down, one was damaged. Its fragments fell on a service area at a military facility, causing a fire which was quickly put out. [00:01:43] And Ukraine has confirmed the use of the long range missiles on Russia. Now the Ukrainian military high command, known as the General Staff, said that Tuesday's attack took place at 2:30 a.m., destroying warehouses with ammunition and triggering a dozen secondary explosions. [00:02:04] Now a representative of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council said that the strike hit warehouses housing artillery ammunition, including North Korean ammunition for their systems, guided aerial bombs, anti-aircraft missiles and ammunition for multiple launch rocket systems. [00:02:23] Now Russia is responding to this, of course. On Tuesday, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called Ukraine's use of atacms in the Bryansk region a signal that they want escalation, a reference to the U.S. [00:02:39] And its Western allies. And so today, Putin formally changed the country's nuclear doctrine. And this is scary because now, I mean, he's put this in writing. He has threatened, you know, the U.S. And its allies with nuclear war before. But according to the Associated Press reporting on this. [00:02:58] Russia's updated nuclear doctrine allows for a potential nuclear response, even to a conventional attack on Russia by any nation that is supported by a nuclear power. And it doesn't say Russia has to use a nuclear weapon in response. [00:03:14] But essentially, this new nuclear doctrine makes clear that the option is open. And so the point you were making on the show yesterday about how Biden allowing for Ukraine to use these long range missiles is going to escalate the war. - Seems like the escalation is here. - Yeah. [00:03:31] So I read into the details to try to figure out what in the world are they thinking, how is this going to help? Because there's a risk reward, right. So the risk here is substantial because now we're talking about nuclear war. [00:03:48] Right. So what's the reward I wondered. And is it worth it? So if they use these missiles to hit inside Russia, is there a chance that they'll get Russia to retreat or surrender? Come on, come on, come on. But. Okay, okay, let's keep it reasonable. Right. [00:04:03] Is there any chance of holding on to territory so that you have higher leverage in negotiations? ET cetera. And what I read was the Ukrainians are saying, if you give us a lot more of these weapons over the long run, we will be able [00:04:19] to do enough damage that we stem the tide. What? Long run. What are you guys talking about? Trump won. He's about to force you into a peace deal where you give up land in about two months. They know that. They know that. And so the explanation that we were hearing from Ukraine yesterday, [00:04:36] I think makes a lot more sense than what you just floated, because the argument that they have is, look, we have taken control of some Russian territory and we want to keep control of that Russian territory as a bargaining chip in the as we engage in, you know, [00:04:54] peace negotiations and a ceasefire deal. That makes sense to me. But someone like Vladimir Putin, I mean, look, is he a rational actor? I mean, he's a he's the leader of a nuclear power. And he he just doesn't seem like a rational actor to me in a lot of ways. [00:05:14] Yeah. So, look, let's go back to risk reward. I hear you. And that we talked briefly about that yesterday. And so I understand the logic of and by the way, Russia is weakened. I mean, they didn't exactly they didn't call in 10,000 North Korean troops because they're doing great. And they lost a piece of their own territory in this fighting, [00:05:32] which is remarkable. I mean, if Canada invaded or we invaded Canada and they fought back, do you think they could get a part of Maine? I don't think they could get a part of Maine. Right. So so, like, I get that it's not like Russia was in fantastic shape to begin with. But guys, the idea that in two months you could push back the Russians so much, [00:05:52] they shot six of these missiles and one of them either partially or fully, landed on an ammo dump inside Russia. That that kind of action is going to be enough to be able to keep, the territory [00:06:08] that they, got inside Russia or to win back some territory inside Ukraine. I don't think so. I think it'll be, at best, a marginal help. So now let's talk about the risks. So that's the potential reward is maybe maybe it helps around the margins on leverage two months from now when they're negotiating the peace treaty. [00:06:27] Right. The risk is they're saying any strike just like this one because it's using US weapons and we're allied with Ukraine inside Russia is grounds for a nuclear strike. Now, are they largely bluffing? I think so, and I certainly hope so. [00:06:45] But are we sure? Are we sure that Putin isn't unhinged? Right. So bottom line is what just happened was we increased the chance of a nuclear battle a little bit. I'm not saying like all of a sudden, oh, World War three is going to break out [00:07:02] and everybody's going to get nuked. No, but it did. The chances of a nuke being used go up in these last couple of days. Absolutely. There's no question about it. The only question is how much did it go up. And I don't want it to go up at all. [00:07:18] So to me, the reward we get out of this is minimal compared to the massive risk. Right. So do I genuinely believe that that's why we allowed them to do this? No, I believe that the military industrial complex doesn't want a peace treaty [00:07:35] and wants to dig in further. And they think that any kind of escalation will help prevent a negotiated treaty. And they want the Ukrainians to use as many of our weapons as possible so they can all get paid. Right. [00:07:50] And they want to deteriorate Russian forces more. So all of American military industrial complexes interest are in extending and escalating this war. I think that's the actual reward for the people in power, and not for any of the rest of us on the planet. [00:08:05] But hasn't this war and the way the U.S. Has responded to it strengthened Russia's allyship with some of our other adversaries, including North Korea, China, Iran? It has. Look, guys, this one is super complicated because, as we've said all along, the U.S. [00:08:24] Shouldn't have pushed NATO that far into Russia's borders. It was needlessly encouraging conflict. And that's, again, the military industrial complex. And as we've said all along, nothing justified Russia's invasion of Ukraine. You know what's not antiwar? Starting a war. [00:08:40] So Russia gets the overwhelming majority of the blame for actually, you know, invading Ukraine and trying to seize territory, which is totally unacceptable. But we're not there anymore. We're now at a place where this thing is likely going to end soon. [00:08:56] So how do we get it to end in as best a way as we could possibly do? Protect the Ukrainians as much as possible. Not encourage other, despotic regimes to try to invade other places and grab land right while still getting to a solution that everyone can live with. [00:09:16] Given that Trump's going to go in that direction, whether we like it or not, that that is, you're not going to be able to bring that back. It's over. Right. So this is not the time to escalate. It is a disastrous idea to escalate right now. [00:09:31] So I'm not moved off that position. God bless the Ukrainian people. I love how they fought back against the Russians. And I'm and I'm proud that we helped them. But at this point, escalating against Russia is madness, and it's done for the profit of the defense contractors. [00:09:47] And I'm not at all interested in it.