Tom Nichols @radiofreetom
For those who keep asking why some of us are so worried about the risks of escalation, you have to understand that NATO and Russia have now switched the positions they had during the Cold War. NATO is now the dominant conventional power; Russia is the weaker power. /1
During the Cold War, NATO had little hope of holding off a Soviet conventional offensive. So we adopted a policy of "flexible response," in which we preserved all options - including nuclear escalation. The Soviets wanted to keep it all conventional if possible, of course. /2
This might seem nuts, but we basically told the Soviets that nuclear use became more probable with Soviet victories, since we would run out of options and we'd intentionally escalate. If you want to understand Putin's threats, it's basically something like that now. /3
The huge difference, of course, is that NATO assumed it would be invaded and fighting a defensive war that made escalation credible. Russia makes these threats basically as a way of getting themselves out of a jam created by their own aggression and stupidity. /4
But in any case, the problem is that the threat to escalate isn't some insane doomsday rant, it's a threat to induce a lot of chaos and unpredictability and instability, to the point where no one would want to be in that situation and peace would be preferable. /5
Putin's Russia is now the weaker conventional power. (And how much weaker, we didn't know until now.) So Putin may make such threats in order to deter us from clobbering his miserable army. Not because he wants Armageddon, but because he's up shit creek and he knows it. /6
His best option, obvs, is to make peace and extract concessions from Ukraine. But if we enter the war and what's left of his military gets sent to the hell it deserves, he might see value in trying to scramble the deck with escalatory threats (as he's already doing now). /7
Nuclear threats, however, could literally blow up in his face. What seems like a good gamble to back everyone down could get out of control when NATO decides to stand firm. With both sides at higher alert, an accident or a panicky misperception could lead to disaster. /8
This is why it's not "he will or won't." There's a lot of room in between "he's a coward" and "he's a maniac." He could also just be delusional and surrounded by weak men - and nothing suggests this more than the complete Russian pooch-screw we're watching now in Ukraine. /9
I wrote a book on nukes in 2015. This is the excerpt on the logic of flexible response. Again, think of it now as the Russians, through their own malevolence and stupidity, today being where NATO was 40 years ago. And think hard before hand-waving at escalatory concerns. /10x