@HelpMeHiveMind
By saying this *@RedToothBrush*, do you imply it's more likely he'd go for either a non Nato country or one without nuclear capability themselves e.g. he wouldn't attack one of those with nukes because of M.A.D? As you say in a later post, that does depend whether he's selling it as "If I go down, you're dead anyway so you may as well take these guys down with us"? OR if he's gone all ISIS style and believes he's purging the world of the evil of NATO...in which case, surely sacrificing themselves in the process would be a better necessary evil than existing alongside us?
I can see a scenario potentially arising which is probably our worst case one. But it could also be the route to a face saving exercise.
The principle of 'The Nuclear Deterrant' only works if your enemy truly believes you are willing to see your intention to fire back.
The principle of the Nuclear Deterrant originated at a time when only the Americans and the Soviets had nukes and the world was largely divided neatly in two between Pro-American and Pro-Communist groupings. Thats not true now and perhaps is a lot more complex - not least because more countries have nukes.
When the US got the Atomic Bomb, the point was it HAD to be used to illustrate the willingness to use it and the destructive force of it. They had to produce 'The Fear'. Thats the true power of nukes - not how many people they can blow up in a single blast.
We assume that anyone firing a preemptive strike is a madman hell bent on destroying the world. There is now a question hanging over whether Putin could be that madman. I personally don't really buy that.
What if there is another possibility here too though?
I pose the question: Putin believes the West is weak. Does this mean that he thinks, that if he uses a nuke against a third party target, the West will definitely respond?
What is the situation if you have someone who doesn't believe that NATO will have the stomach to actually see it through in third party situation?
What if you ultimately though that you chuck a nuke, to prove how serious you were and thus how powerful you are, gambling that the opposition wouldn't chuck one back?
Lets call it the Gambling Man Scenario rather than the Mad Man Scenario we are used to. I think this is the one we perhaps need to be most wary about, rather than an out and out suicide strike.
He will know that if he launches and fails to pull it off all if lost. But if he does the rewards might be there as you redefine the balance of world power. So might think its worth it if he really does think he could play his cards like this and win.
Putin went into Ukraine on a gamble because he arrogantly thought he could win quickly and with little cost; he over estimated his power. He also underestimated the West's response. A lot of this is down to his bunker mentality and him being out of touch with reality as its been distorted by yes men.
This is a dangerous situation because it may also mean he is willing to take a gamble if he thinks there's a chance NATO will blink. Which doesn't have to be a reality - NATO may absoluetly not hesitate if a third party was nuked - Key point: he just has to believe this is the case.
I do think given this growing rhetoric there may be noises which stress the NATO position to try and disspell this. This will sound REALLY scary to the likes of us. But may be needed to close this third party idea about NATO blinking. It will also resonate back in Russia within the context of Putin's pretext...
Equally that could ultimately go too far, or Putin does decide to go suicidal and frames this as an act of aggressive so he has to go preemptive. But this is the extreme end of the scale of posibilities. There are many more in between. Don't overstate third party concerns.
The whole point of this constructed situation is about brinkmanship and trying to get the other to blink first especially if the ground attacks are still faltering and the economic crisis and public reaction is BAD. I'm guessing a certain amount of damage limitation going on regardless. Putin's philosphy has always been to turn a crisis into an opportunity to take advantage of. It could solidify his position back home, if he plays it right.
If this nuke talk does get ramped up increasingly over the next few days, its really not to be unexpected. Its likely to be something Putin has identified as a potential weakness and inevitability will try to exploit it - because he's not got too many cards in his hands right now, even if he has absoluetely no intension of following it through. Which obviously is going to push anxieties on here and elsewhere in NATO countries though the roof. (Its kind of the point)
And he has to do some serious performance acting to try and save face domestically - and to look like he is indeed 'standing up to NATO aggression'. (Thus a contrived Mexican Stand off might be what he's after - obviously with those sanctions on the table).
I think the tone of things will ramp up over the next few days - and get even scarier and giving everyone brown pants - again I stress I don't think this is a certainity and it still doesn't mean anything is likely to happen. Think Cuban Missile Crisis Type Moment.
Keep this in mind: in so many crisis, there needs to be an exit strategy available whereby a wounded party can exit without too much loss of face. Look out for them.
I would suggest in this context that trapping some of the Oligarchs in London rather than allowing them to travel home to potentially talk Putin down off the ceiling if thats where he's clinging, might not be the greatest idea if I'm honest.
The ultimate point here, is both parties have to be on the same page with nukes no matter what and that both really feel there is really nothing to be gained from going down that route.
Sit tight, hold your breathe and try not to panic. (Easier said than done, I know!)