Do you think Putin will use nuclear weapons?

[colddayinhell]

I'm getting very nervous about the ramping up of the war and Putin's calling up of 300,000 reservists. It feels like this is a major escalation. I know that any use of nuclear weapons would mean instant retaliation but it no longer feels like a MAD scenario as it almost feels now like he wants a scorched earth and has nothing to lose and doesn't care that it would destroy everything.

Wish someone would take Putin out, someone on the inside must be itching to do it! but who would be the next leader?

Doubtful. Ukraine is so close to Russia he would be destroying his own country too. They arent very well equipped with bunkers, so it would be really stupid. Then again nobody can say for sure.
i just keep telling myself tht its not gonna happen. No point in being scared of what ifs that you cant change.

He believes if there is no Putin then there will be no world.

Simple.

Do yes he will use Nuclear weapons.
He does have followers who will do as he instructs just like Hitler had.

The West are very good at winding him up.

What utter bollocks! The West are not ‘winding him up’ 🙄🙄 Gaslighting at its finest.

No. No point because no one would 'win' and he being neither stupid nor crazy knows this.

The only country that's ever used nuclear weapons is the USA. Even the USSR (as was) didn't, including when their own systems told them to.

Thank you for this x

The fact that the people around Putin must be hard headed and ruthless to have got to that rank is exactly why they're not going to be up for using nukes. Starting down that path is almost the ultimate in sentiment, in that it's putting ideology and in this case pride and shame ahead of any sensible considerations. Or indeed self interest.

And that's always the way with nuclear weapons. You launch one, you're risking your own life, those of everyone you love (this is true even for those whose families don't live in Russia) and everything you know and value. There's no General Melchett option in that situation.

Also, for the people talking about the ethics of sacrificing Ukraine to Putin for peace and an easy life, that's moot anyway because it isn't one of the options on the table. We've already tried appeasement. The West let Putin away with two land wars in Europe, interference in domestic politics, various assassinations and attempted assassinations on our soil. It didn't work.

Realistically he might as a one off in Ukraine...a show of intent.

That does not inevitably lead to the MAD scenario some are very keen on posting about.

Yes, that post is inherently suspicious isn't it?

The west could not have made it more clear over the past 15 years or so that we were willing to let him get away with some incredibly bad behaviour as long as he stopped short of something as inherently destabilising as this. Putin hasn't been wound up, he's been cosseted and indulged. And here we are.

Would recommend yesterday's episode of 'Ukraine the Latest' podcast by the Telegraph. Its generally fairly on the money and some good analysis. Exact words are that we have no need to be more scared after Putin's speech yesterday than we were the day before.

View of experts analysing the speech was that this was expected and, from Putin's perspective required, in order to placate the noisy ultra-nationalists that have been questioning Russia's handling of the war.

They view the nuclear threat as a simple tag on at the end basically a "and look we have nukes remeber" (with a nod nod wink wink to the ultra-nationalists).

Nobody actually knows and that’s the problem!

I hope not, I've got a holiday to go on soon!

Russia has a f-cktonne of oil and gas, particularly gas. Most of Europe (including the UK) is dependent on gas for power. Putin has, to an extent, stabilised the former Soviet republics. Russian funding has bankrolled domestic European politics (particularly in the UK). All of which meant that no one was particularly keen on upsetting Putin in case the lights went out or the magic money tree stopped funding pro-Russian conservative political parties. Abuses in Chechnya, Georgia, and the Crimea were frowned at, but sanctions were limited.

Putin is playing a long game. It's based on restoring Greater Russia as his legacy. It's a long-held dream of certain political groupings in Russia (see Foundations of Geopolitics) and several of the steps identified as required to achieve this have already been taken.

Ukraine has been a step too far, and the ROW have been forced to react because Ukraine chose to fight back and not accept Russian annexation.

Most people are just trying to get on, do the school run, not fuck up at work and remember to pick up a pint of milk. Why does he think the world revolves round Russia?
The price of petrol/diesel burned as you do the school run has massively increased because Russia invaded the Ukraine and the ROW has imposed sanctions on Russian oil and gas.

Your job is under threat because the energy price increase is squeezing your employers margins, and you're worried whether or not your wages will increase to keep pace with inflation in the cost of living because Russia invaded the Ukraine and the RWO has imposed sanctions on Russian oil and gas.

Your pint of milk has increased in price because the cereals that go into cattle food, and the energy used to collect, transport and process the milk have all increased in price because Russia invaded the Ukraine and the ROW has imposed sanctions on Russian oil and gas.

We let the world revolve around Russia when we sleep-walked into dependence on Russian oil and gas.

Winding him up?

What are you saying here?

If he was going to do it he'd have surely done it by now. He's been making these threats since February.

We let the world revolve around Russia when we sleep-walked into dependence on Russian oil and gas.

True, and we're currently making the same mistake with China, our dependence on cheap mass-produced items has transformed their economy over the last few decades enabling them to have one of the most advanced military capabilities in the world.

On the original question of whether Putin will use nuclear weapons, there's no doubt that he's willing to use them if he doesn't get what he wants - or at least, can no longer convince the average Russian that he always gets what he wants.

Putin considers himself essential to Russia. Without Putin in charge, there's no point in Russia existing. Without Russia existing, there's no point in the world existing. In his view, there is nothing to lose in destroying the planet in a nuclear war. If he's not a strong, successful leader who can do what he likes, there's no need for anyone or anything to exist.

That's why the MAD strategy doesn't work with him. Ironic, that MAD doesn't work when there is a madman in charge. To work, MAD assumes a basic human desire not to destroy the world or your own people.

We should remember that not all nuclear weapons are world-ending though. "Tactical" nuclear weapons are more on a scale of a Hiroshima-type bomb. Highly destructive and can kill hundreds of thousands, but not world-destroying.

I think that the real risk is Putin deploying a tactical weapon - maybe in Ukraine, maybe in western Europe, or even just in the North Sea - and waiting to see what the response is. If NATO replies with nuclear weapons of its own, Russia can just destroy the planet and be done with it. If NATO doesn't respond, Putin will be emboldened and probably deploy more nuclear weapons until he either gets a response or decides he's captured enough territory.

There are ways out of this situation, but all rely on Putin being removed from power. There is a growing awareness in Russia that perhaps all is not as rosy as their media tell them, but most Russians still believe what they are being told - NATO and the West generally are bulling Russia and threatening their existence.

He does it because knows he can wind up some in the west with the rhetoric...cause (understandable) concern, maybe undermine popular support for Ukraine.

FWIW the general analysis seems to be that he's very very very unlikely to simply open the silos or whatever people thinks happens, and/or launch his Long Range Air Force at Western Europe.

It's more possible that if he decides to try and prove a point he might use one weapon, of low yield atop one of the shorter range missiles that are already in theatre, such as Iskander to hit a target in Ukraine.

I'm sure the west has gamed a response to that and I'd be pretty certain the initial response wouldn't be launch all the bombers in the direction of Moscow...

View from military analysts (again from the Ukraine the Latest Podcast - promise I'm not a paid promotor 😂) is that the use of a strategic nuclear weapon is very unlikely but that it should be addressed as a serious threat. Contingency planning will be going on about how it would be addressed and back-channel messaging with Russia about the implications are likely to be ongoing (from both the West and China).

The use of a 'small' tactical nuclear weapon is unlikely to hold any battlefield advantage, other than to scare people shitless, due to the nature of the Ukrainian front line - its simply too big. A tactical nuclear weapon would potentially create a hole within that line but little else.

What may be more likely is that Russia could detonate a nuclear weapon over the Black Sea, in the Arctic or at one of the old Soviet testing grounds - this would obviously have environmental impacts but in large would be psychological.

He's now lining up these sham referenda to make a claim that the annexed territories are sovereign Russia. With this he thinks he can justify the presence of Russian troops and make the Ukrainian counter-offensive an attack on Russian soil. It won't wash with the ROW, but it will play to a large section of the Russian population and encourage them to see Russia as the victim.

Respected analysts are pointing out that Russian conventional forces were heavily depleted after the fall of the Soviet Union. Raising 300,000 conscripts isn't going to make a huge difference when Russia lacks the capacity to train them, supply them, and has not had units geared up to accept a conscript mobilisation for decades. Mass mobilisation was the Soviet doctrine, and it requires a huge infrastructure to be maintained ready to accept it - that's been run-down and sold off decades ago.

The West has been distracted by a few shiny new Russian aircraft, tanks, and special weapons shown on parades and weapons fairs, and has completely overestimated the strength of their available forces. Pre-war estimates of Russian logistical capabilities appear to be miles adrift of what they can actually deliver. In contrast Ukrainian forces have shown themselves to be well-disciplined, and great innovators. The West has underestimated Ukraine's capacity to make full use of technology and materiel when it's provided to them.

I do wonder if, in terms of unconventional weapons, he would be more likely to use chemical or biological weapons. Their use is a taboo that has unfortunately already been broken, in Syria for example, so he might think the fall out would be easier to contain and the advantage greater.

We get ourselves so tied up in knots over nuclear that we risk being blinded to other, perhaps more realistic, risks.

Apparently, the USSR built a doomsday device in the 1980s a device that was postulated in the uber-dark comedy, Dr Strangelove. The device is designed to set off their complete nuclear arsenal at multiple 'enemy' targets if the command and control function of Russia goes down and then of course Trident kicks in... Probably best not to worry about these things in the end.

And they [the Soviets] thought that they could help those leaders by creating an alternative system so that the leader could just press a button that would say: I delegate this to somebody else. I don't know if there are missiles coming or not. Somebody else decide.

If that were the case, he [the Soviet leader] would flip on a system that would send a signal to a deep underground bunker in the shape of a globe where three duty officers sat. If there were real missiles and the Kremlin were hit and the Soviet leadership was wiped out, which is what they feared, those three guys in that deep underground bunker would have to decide whether to launch very small command rockets that would take off, fly across the vast territory of the Soviet Union and launch all their remaining missiles.

Now, the Soviets had once thought about creating a fully automatic system. Sort of a machine, a doomsday machine, that would launch without any human action at all. When they drew that blueprint up and looked at it, they thought, you know, this is absolutely crazy.[21]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand

This. It would be an insane and irrational thing to do.

But him not doing it for that reason assumes his decision making is logical, rational and in Russia’s best interests.

If the whole Ukraine thing for him is primarily about emotion and ego and pride, then yes he might. If he has surrounded himself with fearful lackeys who will obey him. Which he probably has.

He is a dictator and they are people primarily motivated by their ego.

Germany’s mistake was thinking Putin thought like democratically elected leaders, and hence that the trade deals on energy supply would make him closer and more cooperative with the rWest. Whereas he saw it as making Germany his energy slave. He sees the world differently.

The safety guarantee of MAD assumes dictators are rational and act in their citizens’ best interests. That’s some assumption to gamble on.

Brilliant thread thank you

New Statesman article implies from his latest ranting that he will focus on holding the Donbas and let the rest go and probably smashing up as much Ukrainian infrastructure on the way out. The current cost of Ukrainian reconstruction has already reached a third of a trillion dollars according to Bloomberg.

Then, asked if the war plan needed to be adjusted, he stressed Russia’s minimum rather than maximum objectives: “The main goal is to liberate the entire territory of Donbas.” This is a narrower focus than the one with which he started the invasion, and the one that he was still toying with a few weeks ago.

www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/ukraine/2022/09/using-nuclear-weapons-putin-problems

I doubt anyone thinks the reason he wouldn't do it is because he acts in his citizens best interests. It's because he's shown quite clearly that he doesn't want to die himself, hence the terror of covid, and any use of nuclear weapons makes that considerably more likely. His decision to invade Ukraine was certainly a stupid one, but that bad call doesn't mean he's willing to risk his own skin.

There's no reason to suppose the people around him are as you describe either. You don't get to that position without being very hard headed and ruthless, both of which would mitigate against falling in with an order to use nuclear weapons from a leader whose position has been significantly weakened.