X Close

Retired US general: why I think Putin will go nuclear

June 27, 2023 - 3:30pm

A Russian nuclear strike is “likely to happen” if Putin comes to believe that he will lose the Ukraine war, according to a retired US brigadier-general. Speaking to UnHerd’s Freddie Sayers, General Kevin Ryan claimed that if Ukraine were to retake territory in the Crimea such as Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and Donetsk, Putin “would ask his military to increase the violence”, which could entail the use of nuclear weapons. In the wake of last weekend’s Wagner mutiny, the stakes may now be even higher.

In an interview conducted on 15th June, before the revolt, Ryan assessed Putin as “either a bully or a bluffer,” continued Ryan. “I don’t believe he’s a bluffer. I think he does bully other nations.” One indicator that the Russian leader will carry through on his destructive ambitions, the former US general said, is the “recent change of command of the operation in Ukraine”, with the Russian leader cycling through numerous generals and commanding officers over the course of the conflict.

Particularly noteworthy is the beleaguered Valery Gerasimov, Russia’s Chief of the General Staff, given that the incumbent in that position has not headed up a military operation for the country since the Second World War. According to Ryan, Gerasimov, along with the heads of the Ground Forces and Air Force, “control the use of tactical nuclear weapons once an authority has been given by Putin to use them”. 

Another ominous sign is the Kremlin’s movement of nuclear weaponry into Belarus earlier this month. For Ryan, this is “a very visible sign that Putin and his inner circle see these weapons as something that might be needed, something that might be used.” What’s more, “Russia is not a rich country, and they don’t have a lot of money to spend on bluffs and fakes and feints.”

Even in the face of increased Russian aggression, however, Ryan does not believe that Kyiv’s wartime strategy will be significantly dented. “I don’t think Ukraine will stop fighting when a nuclear weapon is finally used,” he claimed. “I think for the first time in history we will have a nuclear battlefield where conventional fighting continues, while nuclear weapons have either been used or might still be used in a war.” Nuclear strikes from Moscow could target the contested Crimean territories, but equally could impact major Ukrainian cities such as Kyiv.  

When asked whether radiation could spread across Europe and have a fatal effect far beyond the boundaries of the conflict, Ryan was more sanguine. “It is not Armageddon,” he clarified. “People will not be dying of nuclear radiation hundreds of miles away. They won’t be dying of nuclear radiation tens of miles from the actual target, if this is a tactical nuclear weapon.” 

On the much-debated question of responsibility for the Kakhovka dam and Nord Stream 2 attacks, Ryan argued that the former was most likely a Russian operation “because they have mined the dam. They’ve controlled it since early in the war. So they were in the best position to do this and they benefit from it by closing off an area to the Ukrainian military.” On Nord Stream, he conceded that it was “very credible” that the Ukrainians executed the sabotage, as suggested by former US presidential advisor Fiona Hill in UnHerd earlier this year. Indeed, the retired general said, “Ukraine would benefit to some degree by closing off Russian oil supplies into Germany.”

It is against this backdrop of secret operations and frenzied finger-pointing that the possibility of nuclear warfare becomes ever more feasible. Ryan, though, is careful not to exacerbate the tensions between Russia and the West. The US “has been pretty clear with Russia that we will not respond with a nuclear weapon,” he said.

Read Kevin Ryan’s piece for UnHerd, “Why Putin will use nuclear weapons”, here.

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

38 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David McKee
David McKee
9 months ago

At first sight, General Ryan seems unhinged in a way that Putin, mercifully, is not. Nuclear weapons are not just a bigger bang, they are a global taboo that has never been breached since 1945. Breaching that taboo would have unpredictable consequences, and Putin has enough on his plate without that.
I think Gen. Ryan’s remarks can be explained by the streak of military adventurism that has always existed in the US armed forces. When Ryan thinks “what would I do in Putin’s shoes?”, he harks back to the attempts by McArthur and Ridgeway to use nuclear weapons in Korea, and by Westmorland in Vietnam.
I suspect that American generals tend to think nuclear weapons are a game-changer, although they are always vague as to precisely how they change the game.

martin logan
martin logan
9 months ago
Reply to  David McKee

Ryan is pretty atypical of most US officers, at least with regard to nukes.
The only reason to have nuclear weapons is to deter other nuclear weapons. They’re pretty useless otherwise.

Last edited 9 months ago by martin logan
Liam O'Mahony
LO
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

Obviously Ryan thinks otherwise?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

Obviously Ryan thinks otherwise?

J Guy
J Guy
9 months ago
Reply to  David McKee

I don’t think you listened to the entire video. Kevin Ryan does not advocate the use of tactical nuclear weapons whatsoever. We need to be prepared to think the unthinkable, which is exactly what we were not doing in early February 2022. How many of us were convinced that Putin was just posturing?

Peter B
Peter B
9 months ago
Reply to  J Guy

But the US military and intelligence services were not fooled in February 2022. They were amongst the few that saw it coming.

Peter B
Peter B
9 months ago
Reply to  J Guy

But the US military and intelligence services were not fooled in February 2022. They were amongst the few that saw it coming.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  David McKee

Sounds about right to me.

Marissa M
Marissa M
9 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Of course now…we know better, don’t we? Putin moving nukes to Belarus the whole time….

Marissa M
Marissa M
9 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Of course now…we know better, don’t we? Putin moving nukes to Belarus the whole time….

John Riordan
John Riordan
9 months ago
Reply to  David McKee

I think Gen. Ryan’s remarks can be explained simply by the fact that his analysis is correct.

Steve White
Steve White
9 months ago
Reply to  David McKee

Looks like Ukraine is going to need to create a nuke incident before this NATO meeting on the 11th (which they will blame on Russia) because the offensive is not doing well. Washington needs NATO to stay on board for eventual war with China, and a failure in Ukraine will kill all that hard work. So, what the corrupt Biden admin needs right now is all this waining support for the war to get ramped back up. So, just like the fake WMD in Iraq, and the fake chemical gassing in Syria, the fake Trump Russiagate, and the fake Russia blew up Nordstream… We will have a fake Russia blew up the nuke powerplant they were guarding, that Ukrain has been shelling for months… Sort of like the fake Russia blew up the dam already under their control.

Last edited 9 months ago by Steve White
martin logan
martin logan
9 months ago
Reply to  David McKee

Ryan is pretty atypical of most US officers, at least with regard to nukes.
The only reason to have nuclear weapons is to deter other nuclear weapons. They’re pretty useless otherwise.

Last edited 9 months ago by martin logan
J Guy
J Guy
9 months ago
Reply to  David McKee

I don’t think you listened to the entire video. Kevin Ryan does not advocate the use of tactical nuclear weapons whatsoever. We need to be prepared to think the unthinkable, which is exactly what we were not doing in early February 2022. How many of us were convinced that Putin was just posturing?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  David McKee

Sounds about right to me.

John Riordan
John Riordan
9 months ago
Reply to  David McKee

I think Gen. Ryan’s remarks can be explained simply by the fact that his analysis is correct.

Steve White
Steve White
9 months ago
Reply to  David McKee

Looks like Ukraine is going to need to create a nuke incident before this NATO meeting on the 11th (which they will blame on Russia) because the offensive is not doing well. Washington needs NATO to stay on board for eventual war with China, and a failure in Ukraine will kill all that hard work. So, what the corrupt Biden admin needs right now is all this waining support for the war to get ramped back up. So, just like the fake WMD in Iraq, and the fake chemical gassing in Syria, the fake Trump Russiagate, and the fake Russia blew up Nordstream… We will have a fake Russia blew up the nuke powerplant they were guarding, that Ukrain has been shelling for months… Sort of like the fake Russia blew up the dam already under their control.

Last edited 9 months ago by Steve White
David McKee
David McKee
9 months ago

At first sight, General Ryan seems unhinged in a way that Putin, mercifully, is not. Nuclear weapons are not just a bigger bang, they are a global taboo that has never been breached since 1945. Breaching that taboo would have unpredictable consequences, and Putin has enough on his plate without that.
I think Gen. Ryan’s remarks can be explained by the streak of military adventurism that has always existed in the US armed forces. When Ryan thinks “what would I do in Putin’s shoes?”, he harks back to the attempts by McArthur and Ridgeway to use nuclear weapons in Korea, and by Westmorland in Vietnam.
I suspect that American generals tend to think nuclear weapons are a game-changer, although they are always vague as to precisely how they change the game.

Carol Moore
Carol Moore
9 months ago

I am convinced by his argument that nuclear weapons are more likely if Russia loses territory as it would make Putin’s position more fragile.

martin logan
martin logan
9 months ago
Reply to  Carol Moore

Putin’s position isn’t “fragile.”
It’s terminal.
He’s lost his cool in every public appearance he’s made since the coup. He knows “the Boyars” are plotting to overthrow him.
Listen to or see “Boris Godunov.” Can’t think of a better metaphor for Russia at present.

P Branagan
P Branagan
9 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

BTW Mr Logan your situation is terminal also.

martin logan
martin logan
9 months ago
Reply to  P Branagan

Oooh, I’m soooo scared!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

We ALL die, eventually if not soon.. ergo we are all terminal!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

We ALL die, eventually if not soon.. ergo we are all terminal!

martin logan
martin logan
9 months ago
Reply to  P Branagan

Oooh, I’m soooo scared!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

Wishful thinking, utterly devoid of any meaningful evidence..

P Branagan
P Branagan
9 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

BTW Mr Logan your situation is terminal also.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

Wishful thinking, utterly devoid of any meaningful evidence..

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  Carol Moore

Putin has 700,000 troops and an unending supply of non nuclear weapons.. he has more useful options at his disposal. Any nuke will be a false flag perpetrated by the NATO madmen!

martin logan
martin logan
9 months ago
Reply to  Carol Moore

Putin’s position isn’t “fragile.”
It’s terminal.
He’s lost his cool in every public appearance he’s made since the coup. He knows “the Boyars” are plotting to overthrow him.
Listen to or see “Boris Godunov.” Can’t think of a better metaphor for Russia at present.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  Carol Moore

Putin has 700,000 troops and an unending supply of non nuclear weapons.. he has more useful options at his disposal. Any nuke will be a false flag perpetrated by the NATO madmen!

Carol Moore
Carol Moore
9 months ago

I am convinced by his argument that nuclear weapons are more likely if Russia loses territory as it would make Putin’s position more fragile.

Simon S
Simon S
9 months ago

Why does Freddy keep saying the Ukrainians were behind the Nord Stream attacks as if it is established fact? Just because his source told him that? US responsibility is infinitely more likely and Seymour Hersh has responded on challenges made to his source’s version. Has someone tapped on Freddy’s shoulder?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon S

Freddie likes to throw the odd spanner in the works to see a reaction.. I wouldn’t read too much into it.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon S

Freddie likes to throw the odd spanner in the works to see a reaction.. I wouldn’t read too much into it.

Simon S
Simon S
9 months ago

Why does Freddy keep saying the Ukrainians were behind the Nord Stream attacks as if it is established fact? Just because his source told him that? US responsibility is infinitely more likely and Seymour Hersh has responded on challenges made to his source’s version. Has someone tapped on Freddy’s shoulder?

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago

Are Donetsk and Kherson ‘in the Crimea’?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

We’ve moved on from the THEs – it’s no longer The Ukraine and The Crimea.. it’s now simply Ukraine and Crimea.. but yes, Ryan might need to refer to his Atlas from time to time.

Last edited 9 months ago by Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

We’ve moved on from the THEs – it’s no longer The Ukraine and The Crimea.. it’s now simply Ukraine and Crimea.. but yes, Ryan might need to refer to his Atlas from time to time.

Last edited 9 months ago by Liam O'Mahony
Hugh Bryant
HB
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago

Are Donetsk and Kherson ‘in the Crimea’?

Alan Colquhoun
Alan Colquhoun
9 months ago

Get your basic geography right please: Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and Donetsk are not “in the Crimea”…..

Nick Wade
Nick Wade
9 months ago

I thought I would read the preamble to see if it was worth listening to. Anyone who is “sanguine” about the use of nuclear weapons, of any size, and believes the Ukrainians blew up that pipeline is a lunatic, in my view, so, won’t be listening.

Last edited 9 months ago by Nick Wade
J Guy
J Guy
9 months ago
Reply to  Nick Wade

Pretty closed-minded not to take in an unsavoury viewpoint because you don’t like it. The reality is that these weapons exist, and they may well be used at any time by a military state that finds itself threatened with defeat.

martin logan
martin logan
9 months ago
Reply to  J Guy

No nation will choose complete annihilation.
Nuclear weapons are only good to forestall other nuclear weapons.
Useless otherwise.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

Not so, sadly! Tactical nukes are flavour of the month right now.. no threat to the US 8,000 miles away, and dead Ukes an’ Ruskies don’t matter to Americans.

Last edited 9 months ago by Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

Not so, sadly! Tactical nukes are flavour of the month right now.. no threat to the US 8,000 miles away, and dead Ukes an’ Ruskies don’t matter to Americans.

Last edited 9 months ago by Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  J Guy

I guess that works both (or even three or more) ways? My money is on the ol’ false flag tactic.. the US are good at that, and have plenty of crazy Ukes itchin’ to use Nukes!

martin logan
martin logan
9 months ago
Reply to  J Guy

No nation will choose complete annihilation.
Nuclear weapons are only good to forestall other nuclear weapons.
Useless otherwise.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  J Guy

I guess that works both (or even three or more) ways? My money is on the ol’ false flag tactic.. the US are good at that, and have plenty of crazy Ukes itchin’ to use Nukes!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  Nick Wade

You did right! Unfortunately, some of us got suckered in!

J Guy
TG
J Guy
9 months ago
Reply to  Nick Wade

Pretty closed-minded not to take in an unsavoury viewpoint because you don’t like it. The reality is that these weapons exist, and they may well be used at any time by a military state that finds itself threatened with defeat.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  Nick Wade

You did right! Unfortunately, some of us got suckered in!

Nick Wade
Nick Wade
9 months ago

I thought I would read the preamble to see if it was worth listening to. Anyone who is “sanguine” about the use of nuclear weapons, of any size, and believes the Ukrainians blew up that pipeline is a lunatic, in my view, so, won’t be listening.

Last edited 9 months ago by Nick Wade
j watson
j watson
9 months ago

Putin won’t use because he can’t control the consequences and what backers he has won’t support a strike. If he starts to lose territory the ‘stab in the back’ narrative will be chief excuse and used to retain power for as long as he can.
There has always been an element in US military that because a weapon exists assume the opposing force will use it because it’s what they’d likely advocate as a military response. Not entirely unexpected. But politicians retain control and have a broader calculus. .
Putin will sabre rattle as much as he can, for external and internal consumption because he’s low on other leverage. Khruschev did the same. Plan for the worse of course but don’t allow the sabre rattling to change strategy.

j watson
j watson
9 months ago

Putin won’t use because he can’t control the consequences and what backers he has won’t support a strike. If he starts to lose territory the ‘stab in the back’ narrative will be chief excuse and used to retain power for as long as he can.
There has always been an element in US military that because a weapon exists assume the opposing force will use it because it’s what they’d likely advocate as a military response. Not entirely unexpected. But politicians retain control and have a broader calculus. .
Putin will sabre rattle as much as he can, for external and internal consumption because he’s low on other leverage. Khruschev did the same. Plan for the worse of course but don’t allow the sabre rattling to change strategy.

martin logan
martin logan
9 months ago

Interesting that Putin is now in Derbent.
He may think that it would be best to seek asylum in Iran.
Not many other places will receive him when the inevitable happens.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

Putin is immensely popular in Russia, well entrenched, hugely supported and as wily as a hungry fox.. apart from a CIA bullet or drone I think his position is secure.
I also think the Prigozhin event may have bern staged – there are several positive outcomes as far a both are concerned..

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

Putin is immensely popular in Russia, well entrenched, hugely supported and as wily as a hungry fox.. apart from a CIA bullet or drone I think his position is secure.
I also think the Prigozhin event may have bern staged – there are several positive outcomes as far a both are concerned..

martin logan
martin logan
9 months ago

Interesting that Putin is now in Derbent.
He may think that it would be best to seek asylum in Iran.
Not many other places will receive him when the inevitable happens.

martin logan
martin logan
9 months ago

That Putin would use a nuclear weapon when the Chinese have warned him not to would be suicidal for the regime in the long run.
The only real nuclear threat comes from the power plant at Enerhodar.
Putin still could conceivably blow it. It of course would irradiate precisely those areas that are Russophone. But since any idea that Russophone Ukrainians want to be part of Russia ceased to be credible with the election of Zelensky–via the Russophone vote–that’s irrelevant now.
The real problem for Putin is that most of the world’s grain supply would then be irradiated, causing mass hunger throughout the world. Hunger in China would threaten Xi’s regime, so most of the world would be actively seeking the destruction of Russia’s regime.
That this would also mean the end of Russia probably seems incidental to Putin right now. He is desperate. Every inhabitant of Moscow, most especially the Siloviki, now know that even the capital is not safe from this war. The fat Kremlin rats are well past psychotic, calculating who will replace Putin–and who is likely to liquidate them to do so.
Still, Putin may figure that to hang on to power for a few more weeks, or even days, blowing Enerhodar may be worth it.
Only time will tell.
There’s really nothing we can do, since Putin has far more to fear from his domestic foes than from us.

Last edited 9 months ago by martin logan
P Branagan
P Branagan
9 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

Mr Logan double up on anti-psychotic meds. You are clearly utterly divorced from reality – probably by consuming the appalling hate baiting, war mongering British MSM.
Putin’s popularity ratings are in the low 80s per cent – even according to prejudiced Western polling agencies.

martin logan
martin logan
9 months ago
Reply to  P Branagan

If the 20% includes people like Prigozhin, doesn’t really matter who the others are, does it?
The Bolsheviks never had a genuine majority throughout there entire 74 years.
The Sledgehammer is coming for Russia…and it will split every Russian skull, sadly.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

Nah.. wishful thinking or too much war gaming on your part.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

Nah.. wishful thinking or too much war gaming on your part.

martin logan
martin logan
9 months ago
Reply to  P Branagan

If the 20% includes people like Prigozhin, doesn’t really matter who the others are, does it?
The Bolsheviks never had a genuine majority throughout there entire 74 years.
The Sledgehammer is coming for Russia…and it will split every Russian skull, sadly.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

I disagree. The Prigozhin hoax will have flushed out any anti Putin types in the army and Politburo who are now isolated (if they’re lucky!) and Putin’s power and popularity will be greater than ever.
Putin is secure.

P Branagan
P Branagan
9 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

Mr Logan double up on anti-psychotic meds. You are clearly utterly divorced from reality – probably by consuming the appalling hate baiting, war mongering British MSM.
Putin’s popularity ratings are in the low 80s per cent – even according to prejudiced Western polling agencies.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  martin logan

I disagree. The Prigozhin hoax will have flushed out any anti Putin types in the army and Politburo who are now isolated (if they’re lucky!) and Putin’s power and popularity will be greater than ever.
Putin is secure.

martin logan
martin logan
9 months ago

That Putin would use a nuclear weapon when the Chinese have warned him not to would be suicidal for the regime in the long run.
The only real nuclear threat comes from the power plant at Enerhodar.
Putin still could conceivably blow it. It of course would irradiate precisely those areas that are Russophone. But since any idea that Russophone Ukrainians want to be part of Russia ceased to be credible with the election of Zelensky–via the Russophone vote–that’s irrelevant now.
The real problem for Putin is that most of the world’s grain supply would then be irradiated, causing mass hunger throughout the world. Hunger in China would threaten Xi’s regime, so most of the world would be actively seeking the destruction of Russia’s regime.
That this would also mean the end of Russia probably seems incidental to Putin right now. He is desperate. Every inhabitant of Moscow, most especially the Siloviki, now know that even the capital is not safe from this war. The fat Kremlin rats are well past psychotic, calculating who will replace Putin–and who is likely to liquidate them to do so.
Still, Putin may figure that to hang on to power for a few more weeks, or even days, blowing Enerhodar may be worth it.
Only time will tell.
There’s really nothing we can do, since Putin has far more to fear from his domestic foes than from us.

Last edited 9 months ago by martin logan
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago

Either he’s softening us up for a nice tactical NATO nuclear war.. (it might not be too bad; sure, it’ll be grand!)..
Or, he’s softening us up for a US (NATO) withdrawal: if a Ukraine win means nuclear bombs logically, it has to he a bad outcome for the US/NATO (+Ukraine)..
So it’s a lose, lose for NATOet al.. it’d be catastrophic for Ukraine but they are the maddest of all and seem to have a death wish anyway.
The first nuclear weapon will not be Russian: it’ll be a false flag operation by the mad warmongers: alarmingly there is no shortage of madmen in Ukraine, the US, UK, Poland and in NATO generally, including Norway hiding behind their mountain range.
Don’t worry Freddie, he’s wrong.. too fond of his armchair based war games..

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago

Either he’s softening us up for a nice tactical NATO nuclear war.. (it might not be too bad; sure, it’ll be grand!)..
Or, he’s softening us up for a US (NATO) withdrawal: if a Ukraine win means nuclear bombs logically, it has to he a bad outcome for the US/NATO (+Ukraine)..
So it’s a lose, lose for NATOet al.. it’d be catastrophic for Ukraine but they are the maddest of all and seem to have a death wish anyway.
The first nuclear weapon will not be Russian: it’ll be a false flag operation by the mad warmongers: alarmingly there is no shortage of madmen in Ukraine, the US, UK, Poland and in NATO generally, including Norway hiding behind their mountain range.
Don’t worry Freddie, he’s wrong.. too fond of his armchair based war games..

Roger Smith
RS
Roger Smith
9 months ago

I tend to think the least horrific outcome would indeed be a nuclear strike, but straight to the face of this lunatic moron.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  Roger Smith

I’m assuming you’re trying to be funny; either that or you’ve a nasty streak that needs psychiatric help!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
9 months ago
Reply to  Roger Smith

I’m assuming you’re trying to be funny; either that or you’ve a nasty streak that needs psychiatric help!

Roger Smith
Roger Smith
9 months ago

I tend to think the least horrific outcome would indeed be a nuclear strike, but straight to the face of this lunatic moron.