I find this theory so absurd, i am quite sure it comes out of some psyops organization. The main thing that resembled some of Russias former glory as SU was their nuclear arsenal. And believing they would let all of it go unmaintained to the point that no relevant amount of nukes would remain working is just nonsensical. Hanging on to that arsenal must have been one of Russias top strategic priorities.
It’s really not, brain drain, collapse of the ussr, cost to maintain, etc. all of this is why many in the west believe that the stockpile is in ruin. The kursk sunk because they didnt maintain basic torpedoes, what makes you think they have the knowledge/money to do that with nukes.
Russia has clearly shown it’s a paper tiger.
I find this theory so absurd, i am quite sure it comes out of some psyops organization. The main thing that resembled some of Russias former glory as SU was their nuclear arsenal. And believing they would let all of it go unmaintained to the point that no relevant amount of nukes would remain working is just nonsensical. Hanging on to that arsenal must have been one of Russias top strategic priorities.
It’s really not, brain drain, collapse of the ussr, cost to maintain, etc. all of this is why many in the west believe that the stockpile is in ruin. The kursk sunk because they didnt maintain basic torpedoes, what makes you think they have the knowledge/money to do that with nukes. Russia has clearly shown it’s a paper tiger.
With which knowledge did they build their nuclear arsenal?
Do you think all the scientists and soldiers just evaporated in 1990?