Russia also has not committed to a NFU policy. In fact, they have explicitly stated that, if Russia's survival is threatened (such as, you're rolling tanks over their border), then nukes are in play.
Of course, the problem is that Putin has a very expansive idea of "what threatens Russia"...
Nuclear contamination doesn't tend to stay put and respect borders. Russia knows that, so I don't think Russia would drop a nuke anywhere in their own vicinity.
In fact, this is really simple: If Putin wants to launch nukes, he will launch nukes. If Putin thinks it will help his cause, he will launch nukes. There's nothing we can do about this.
The strongest weapon Russia has right now is the threat of launching nukes it seems...
But Russia has thousands of nukes, and that's not a secret. Russia knows that nobody would dare attack them, ever. And the rest of the world knows that too.
The whole thing about Russia feeling "threatened" is just total BS. Putin just knows that in this day and age you need to play the victim, and lots of people instinctively would take your side. It doesn't matter how absurd the claim is.
It's so surprising that nobody ever talks about the active nuclear policies the countries have. For example Russia states the following:
> With regard to nuclear weapons specifically, Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons:
> - in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also
> - in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened.
As long as NATO doesn't nuke something first or the very existence of Russia is not threatened, they should not use nukes.
From this part on I am speculating only, but I believe if Putin would press the red button the officers would have the right to refuse to execute the order.
Letting Russia do whatever they want is arguably not a great strategy towards stopping proliferation, since it sends the message that you're free to do as you please if you have nukes.
There's a big difference between an invasion and launching nukes. There is no amount of reparation, apologies, victim blaming, empty promises, propaganda, etc. to un-do a nuke. Putin wants to remain in power - which doesn't happen if there's no country left to govern.
Nuclear weapons require constant, ongoing maintenance if they have any hope of going bang. Russia doesn't have the assets to keep that up anymore. Their nuclear arsenal is probably a fraction of its theoretical capability.
In addition, if Putin tried to launch nukes, I doubt the other oligarchs would go along with his mass suicide plan.
It looks like nukes are off the table. In any way, Russia is invading countries who don't possess nuclear weapons, and uses unflagged troops. From that logic it would be illogical to retaliate with nukes for attacks on troops that aren't yours...
Putin is deliberately isolating conflict regions from each other and from the bigger picture, somehow hoping that no single attack is worth it for NATO to actually retaliate in any form. So far, as long as no NATO countries are in immediate danger, this works extremely well.
Of course, the problem is that Putin has a very expansive idea of "what threatens Russia"...
reply