🗣️ | UA-NATO/RU | Crisis Environment | ANALYSIS OF REPORTS

[DEFCON Warning System]

Look at the movement towards deterrence in 2022 when the west actively knew the Russians were debating it, there’s zero of that movement taking place today.

I am reading things differently.

No one in Russia was seriously contemplating using nukes in 2022.

Today, Russia is starting to contemplate it. Not enough to have a Durma debate. But in corridors and offices, yes.

 

[Snowfall]

I am reading things differently.

No one in Russia was seriously contemplating using nukes in 2022.

Today, Russia is starting to contemplate it. Not enough to have a Durma debate. But in corridors and offices, yes.

In 2022 Russian generals were actively discussing the scenarios in which they would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. I remember a video from this site that concerned me so much that I still remember it, where you stated that western leaders placed the odds of Russian nuclear use in the double digits, and I 100% agreed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/us/politics/russia-ukraine-nuclear-weapons.html

As compared to today where western leaders discuss numerous other scenarios, but routinely outright deny the risk of Putin using nukes rather than stating “we hope he won’t” like they were in fall of 2022.

Are there still scenarios where Putin could and would reach for nukes over the war in Ukraine? Absolutely, looking at Crimea for sure. But I really don’t think we’re anywhere near them, and I certainly don’t think we’re anywhere close to as dangerous of a situation as 2022 was.

 

[Publius]

Tactical nuke use first. Absolutely the US first to use or israel. Definitely not your so called enemies.

To claim that Russia would not launch a first strike lacks credulity given the repeated threats made by officials in and out of government in Russia during the first 21/2 years of the war.

It also goes against their revised nuclear doctrine released in 2021. You know that “escalate to deescalate”.

I am not saying the US or another would not also consider launching a first strike. Like say China.

The problem with saying Israel or DPRK would initiate a first strike is problematic.
Not because neither might not consider it.
But what would be the conditions that provoked either to resort to a first strike.
A massive chemical attack on Israel very will might instigate a nuclear response.
But especially with Israel if they launched a strike on Tehran. The political out cry EVEN in the US would be overwhelming.


Nuclear war is more likely to be stumbled into, than strategically planned. And in that regard any nuclear state is a candidate for slipping on the sidewalk and jerking the trigger.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

In 2022 Russian generals were actively discussing the scenarios in which they would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

What Generals discuss is irrelevant. It is what the politicians discuss.

I remember a video from this site that concerned me so much that I still remember it, where you stated that western leaders placed the odds of Russian nuclear use in the double digits, and I 100% agreed.

I don't ever remember saying that unless we were quoting someone else.

but routinely outright deny the risk of Putin using nukes

There are three possibilities:

1. They truly believe Russia won't
2. Their head is in the sand
3. They are trying to keep the panic at the low sweat stage

 

[Publius]

I am reading things differently.

No one in Russia was seriously contemplating using nukes in 2022.

Today, Russia is starting to contemplate it. Not enough to have a Durma debate. But in corridors and offices, yes.

What about their revised nuclear doctrine released in 21 or 22.
Formalized by Putin in 24.

I still regard this as largely bluster. But the escalate to de-escalate when the government In Moscow is at risk. Isn’t this pretty much the door to justify a nuclear first strike.

 

[Snowfall]

What Generals discuss is irrelevant. It is what the politicians discuss.


I don't ever remember saying that unless we were quoting someone else.


There are three possibilities:

1. They truly believe Russia won't
2. Their head is in the sand
3. They are trying to keep the panic at the low sweat stage

The original article said something along the lines of “senior military leaders” many of whom are effectively political leaders who carry much more sway than your average duma member. Also in 2022, I can’t give an exact number or anything, but there was a substantial amount of duma members calling for nukes to be used as well.

I believe it was in this video

It’s not the fact the governments are denying it, it’s the sheer certainty they’re denying it with compared to 2022.

 

[Torch]

Is this fairly old or did the PT boats successfully carried FE to freedom?

Never mind I foundit. Super hard to do without a front facing index.*


* (Disclaimer: I am know to be unsettling and super
stupid at times and miss the obvious. Best to never hang on my words

 

[Torch]

I am a big fan of this primer:

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

But the escalate to de-escalate when the government In Moscow is at risk. Isn’t this pretty much the door to justify a nuclear first strike.

A nuclear first strike would fit in Russia's escalate-to-deescalate doctrine.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

it’s the sheer certainty they’re denying it with compared to 2022.

Sheer certainty is sheer ignorance.

 

[Charmender]

Sheer certainty is sheer ignorance.

This is a very strong thesis for this kind of forum.

I mean, if we don't base our analysis on real facts and sources certainties, like Snowfall mentioned above.
What are we doing? We go by sentiment? Conspiracy? Folkore/fetish? Twitter/media trends? Hope?

The original article said something along the lines of “senior military leaders” many of whom are effectively political leaders who carry much more sway than your average duma member. Also in 2022, I can’t give an exact number or anything, but there was a substantial amount of duma members calling for nukes to be used as well.

I believe it was in this video

It’s not the fact the governments are denying it, it’s the sheer certainty they’re denying it with compared to 2022.

Totally agree here.

What about their revised nuclear doctrine released in 21 or 22.
Formalized by Putin in 24.

Russia had already the legal base, to use nukes during the Ukranian campaign over russian soil...I can't remember having seen mushrooms clouds.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Russia had already the legal base, to use nukes during the Ukranian campaign over russian soil...I can't remember having seen mushrooms clouds.

There is more to using nuclear weapons than that "We have them, let's use them."

What would be the geopolitical repercussions if Russia used nukes in Ukraine?

 

[Snowfall]

Sheer certainty is sheer ignorance.

Maybe sheer certainty was the wrong word, but you can’t deny the statements from western governments show they are considerably less worried Russia won’t use nukes in Ukraine now than they were in 2022. The public posture from the western governments at that point looked a hell of a lot different than right now.

 

[GBS61]

What Generals discuss is irrelevant. It is what the politicians discuss.


I don't ever remember saying that unless we were quoting someone else.


There are three possibilities:

1. They truly believe Russia won't
2. Their head is in the sand
3. They are trying to keep the panic at the low sweat stage

I choose number 2: they have their heads in the sand.
Political naivety
As recently as last Friday, US politicians brushed aside the following:

Escalation beyond Ukraine: Tensions are not limited to the Ukrainian front. Western intelligence agencies are deeply concerned about a Russian-led sabotage campaign in Europe, including recent attempted drone attacks on critical infrastructure in Germany.

 

[RiffRaff]

There is more to using nuclear weapons than that "We have them, let's use them."

Not anymore. Look at the slow progression from MAD during Cold War 1 - nuclear weapons are terrifying and for deterrence purposes only - to current where openly discussing the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear armed nations is no longer taboo. The more you normalize the possibility in discussions - seriously or not - the less taboo the next step of actually deploying them becomes. That is a slow progression as well, but think about this: The last American President to personally witness an above-ground nuclear detonation was John F. Kennedy. I don't know who the last Russian leader was to witness one, but certainly not Putin, and I doubt very many people in leadership positions on either side have ever witnessed one go off. I think this is dangerous. The damage a nuclear weapon can only be visualized in the abstract. I maintain those who actually witnessed them in the mid to late 20th century would have been much less likely to casually discuss using them, let alone actually doing so.

What would be the geopolitical repercussions if Russia used nukes in Ukraine?

More sanctions. A strongly worded condemnation from the UN. That's it. Here is how nuclear-armed nations would react to a Russian use of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine:

Pakistan: Our nuclear weapons are only for killing Indians, so we don't care.
India: Our nuclear weapons are only for killing Pakistanis, so we don't care.
Israel: Our nuclear weapons are only for killing Muslims, so we don't care.
China: Bad Putin! Bad boy! However, it doesn't affect us, so we don't care.
North Korea: Doesn't affect us, so we don't care. (But can we have some of the scientific data from that?)
France: Bad Putin! Bad boy! We care, but we're not going to risk a nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine.
UK: Bad Putin! Bad boy! We care, but we're not going to risk a nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine.
US: Bad Putin! Bad boy! We care, but we're not going to risk a nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. (Fuck, that was cool, dude!)
Iran: Can we have one of those, please?

Russia risks no actual military repercussions for using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. The only POSSIBLE exception to this would be if a NATO country was impacted by direct radiation or fallout, and even then I don't think it's likely.

The overall general global nuclear threat is rising, even if there's no indication that something is imminent. Personally, my own DEFCON level hasn't dropped below 4 since Russia invaded.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Russia risks no actual military repercussions for using nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

I agree that there will be no direct military repercussions against Russia should Russia use a nuclear weapon. (Indirect maybe)

Do you think there will be no economic repercussions?

 

[RiffRaff]

I agree that there will be no direct military repercussions against Russia should Russia use a nuclear weapon. (Indirect maybe)

Do you think there will be no economic repercussions?

There will be, that's why I mentioned sanctions. But I'm not sure Putin would really care that much.

 

[Publius]

This is a very strong thesis for this kind of forum.

I mean, if we don't base our analysis on real facts and sources certainties, like Snowfall mentioned above.
What are we doing? We go by sentiment? Conspiracy? Folkore/fetish? Twitter/media trends? Hope?


Totally agree here.


Russia had already the legal base, to use nukes during the Ukranian campaign over russian soil...I can't remember having seen mushrooms clouds.

We base our opinions on our understanding of human nature and as it is applied to nations state interactions.

 

[Publius]

There will be, that's why I mentioned sanctions. But I'm not sure Putin would really care that much.

Then why hasn’t he already?

My point is we here and professionals alike in general assume the escalation will follow some semi-logical escalation ladder.
This possibility has always been a WAG.

I mentioned in another post that nuclear war will more likely occur because of a misstep.
If Putin was going to follow some presumed escalation ladder. There have been several attacks Ukraine has successfully carried out.
Some done so generally assumed with western intelligence help.
Especially given their changed nuclear policy

As DN points out irrespective of who or why a nation escalates to nukes.
The prospect of containing it diminishes greatly. All nations and leaders know this.

This is the difficulty with what we discuss here. There is almost an infinite number scenarios that could come to pass.